Oral
Answers to
Questions

Energy Security and Net Zero

The Secretary of State was asked—

Energy Transition Projects: Scotland

Ian Blackford: What steps he is taking to support energy transition projects in Scotland.

Philippa Whitford: What steps he is taking to support energy transition projects in Scotland.

Grant Shapps: We are supporting Scotland through the North sea transition deal, contracts for difference for renewable energy, and more than £80 million of net zero innovation portfolio funding.

Ian Blackford: I thank the Secretary of State for that response, particularly in relation to CfDs. Will he commit today to a clear pathway for the true commercial-scale development of tidal stream energy? A ringfence in the CfD auction is welcome, but it is only scratching the surface of what the industry can deliver. Investors in projects are stalling, as they need long-term visibility. The industry—and, indeed, all of us—needs this technology to succeed. Let us unlock this predictable, renewable power and create an industry and sector that we can be proud of and that can be made on these islands. We need a commitment today that the ringfenced budget will increase, to allow costs to fall and true-scale projects to be delivered. If we want energy security, here is the pathway.

Lindsay Hoyle: We are meant to be asking questions, not making statements.

Grant Shapps: Fortunately, the answer is pretty straightforward. As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, we are doing tidal power in this CfD round. That is to be welcomed and we look forward to this industry expanding in the future, as some of the technicalities and technical difficulties are resolved. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has visited recently to see this in action.

Philippa Whitford: Energy storage is vital to managing demand as we switch to renewable electricity. Pumped storage hydro is the most efficient large-scale storage  method. UK capacity could be more than doubled by six projects across Scotland that have been shovel ready for more than five years. They take a long time to build, so why are the UK Government not supporting investment in infrastructure that is critical for our future energy security?

Grant Shapps: I have discussed this matter with SSE in relation to that particular hydro storage project, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State met MSPs yesterday to discuss the subject as well. We are keen to have this kind of hydro storage, which is why our plans allow for it to be taken forward. However, I have to say to Opposition Members—all of them—that it is no good just having one kind of storage or one kind of tidal power; we also need to protect the Scottish economy with oil and gas to make sure we are not subjected to Putin or any other dictator holding us to ransom over our energy security.

Virginia Crosbie: It is good to hear that the Secretary of State is supporting the economy in Scotland, but my question is: how are the UK Government investing in grid capacity in Wales? In Wales, such investment is crucial if we are to support energy transition projects such as the Holyhead hydrogen hub, Minesto, Morlais, BP Mona, Lightsource BP and, of course, new nuclear at Wylfa.

Grant Shapps: Grid capacity in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland is at the top of our list. The Winser review has done a lot of work to look at how we can speed up the delivery of that capacity, given the big transition that is going on and this country’s big lead in renewables, which makes that necessary.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesman.

Alan Brown: On pumped storage hydro, it is as though the Secretary of State just does not get it. It increases energy resilience and would reduce the £4.2 billion balancing costs that are getting paid out at the moment. The 1.5 GW Coire Glas scheme can be delivered in seven years, and it would power 3 million homes for a 24-hour period. The Government have found £700 million for Sizewell C and they have implemented cap and floor mechanisms for interconnectors, so why is he not having proper discussions with SSE about a cap and floor mechanism?

Grant Shapps: The Secretary of State does in fact get it, because we support the idea of having things such as hydro power. Again, I have to say that there is a choice where taxpayers’ money is spent. It has to be done competitively in the round. To be talking merely about storage and not the generation, including nuclear power, which is a key part of this country’s energy security future, simply means that the overall view that the SNP has is unbalanced when it comes to how we power our nations.

Alan Brown: The Secretary of State has proved he still does not get it—he is not having proper discussions with SSE. If we move to carbon capture and storage, the Climate Change Committee’s progress report identified “risks” and “significant risks” associated with industrial clusters and carbon dioxide storage, which proves it is   nonsensical to have Acorn as a reserve. When will the Government announce the track 2 clusters and provide parity for Acorn? When does he envisage Acorn starting construction? That is vital to meet the 2030 targets.

Grant Shapps: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already pumped £40 million into Acorn. It is on the reserve list. He asks when; the answer is this year for track 2 and track 1 expansion. So I say it again: the Secretary of State does get it.

Energy Intensive Industries: Decarbonisation

Bill Esterson: What steps his Department is taking to help energy intensive industries decarbonise.

Graham Stuart: The Government are investing billions to support the development and deployment of carbon capture, utilisation and storage, hydrogen and other decarbonisation technologies, and have a range of policies supporting industrial decarbonisation, such as the industrial energy transformation fund and local industrial decarbonisation plans.

Bill Esterson: There are 23 clean steel projects across Europe, but none in the UK. Meanwhile, the UK is the only country in the G20 where steel production is falling. Other countries recognise the importance of their domestic steel industries, and they recognise the importance of investing in low-carbon steel. Why do this Government not support our steel?

Graham Stuart: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, this Government do support the UK steel industry. On his broader point, which he mentioned in his original question, UK industrial emissions have fallen 65% since 1990, and we are making significant investments in industrial decarbonisation, not least the £20 billion announced at the end of March, which will contribute to decarbonisation through CCUS and help the steel industry.

Dominic Raab: Do Ministers agree that the Government’s competition for small modular nuclear reactors will help provide the volume of energy we need for energy-intensive domestic industries and, over the long term, at a lower cost than previous nuclear power stations?

Graham Stuart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. There is enormous enthusiasm on the Government side of the House for the potential of nuclear, including small modular reactors. We are determined to see that go forward as quickly as possible, which is why the new organisation, Great British Nuclear, is doing a rapid down selection of technologies this year, precisely in order to unlock the benefits that my right hon. Friend so correctly highlights.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

Angus MacNeil: On decarbonisation, many organisations, such as the Institution of Civil Engineers, are asking about the Government’s net zero growth plan, which said:
“The public will play a key role in the transition and therefore we will set out further detail on how Government will increase public engagement on net zero.”
Can the Minister clarify when that detail will be published?

Graham Stuart: I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. He is right that as well as top-down Government policy, we must unlock the huge public desire of people to play their part and make sure we have the right information in place. That will be provided and produced as soon as possible.

Mark Pawsey: The Minister will welcome measures that many businesses are already undertaking simply because they are the right thing to do, including traditionally carbon-intensive industries, such as cement manufacturing. Cemex in my constituency is investing to use decarbonised raw material and trialling the use of hydrogen in the combustion process, which will significantly reduce the amount of CO2 generated by every tonne of cement manufactured in Rugby?

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is right, and he is right to champion those industries that are working so hard to decarbonise already. As my hon. Friend says, we have the net zero hydrogen fund, which will provide up to £240 million by 2025 to support the development and construction of new low-carbon hydrogen production plants, which will be able to assist in cement as well as other industries.

Lithium-ion Battery Storage Facilities: Regulation

Maria Miller: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of regulations for industrial lithium-ion battery storage facilities.

Andrew Bowie: It is a priority for this Government that all net zero energy infrastructure is built, operated and maintained in an appropriate and safe way. My officials work closely with the industry-led electricity storage health and safety governance group to ensure an appropriate, robust and future-proofed health and safety framework is sustained as storage deployment increases.

Maria Miller: We need to increase power storage, but the potential fire risks associated with lithium-ion battery storage facilities are now becoming widely acknowledged. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure those facilities are not built in inappropriate locations, such as Basing Fenn in my constituency, which is a site sandwiched between a rare north-flowing, salmonid chalk stream and a hospital?

Andrew Bowie: I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and her tireless campaigning on this important issue. As I discussed in that very positive meeting that I had with her yesterday, I have been working with colleagues across Government to establish the appropriate treatment of these facilities in planning and environmental regulation. Every site should be considered on its own merits and is a decision for our local authorities.

Barry Sheerman: Will this Government stop chuntering on about batteries and battery storage all the time? Will they get down to JCB and see its innovative new hydrogen fuel car and  heavy goods vehicle? Is it not about time that we realised that hydrogen is the future and that this Government should be building a pipeline of hydrogen throughout the country?

Andrew Bowie: I will not be drawn on chuntering on by the hon. Gentleman, but let me just say that it was this Government who allowed JCB to proceed with that technology and to develop it at commercial scale. I am pleased to tell him that the Secretary of State will be visiting imminently.

Floating Offshore Wind: Supply Chain

Stephen Kinnock: What steps he is taking to help increase the potential benefits of floating offshore wind for the supply chain.

Graham Stuart: The Government are committed to placing the UK at the forefront of the floating wind sector. I am delighted to announce that the Crown estate will be providing an update to industry this morning on a 4 GW leasing round in the Celtic sea and has already commissioned the survey work required to support it.

Stephen Kinnock: The development of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for my Aberavon constituency, for Wales and for the entire United Kingdom. Last week, the Climate Change Committee rightly blasted the Government for failing to deliver on their net zero commitment. I am profoundly concerned that floating offshore wind will be squandered due to the lack of grip and direction that the committee described. When will the Minister be bringing forward an industrial strategy for floating offshore wind, which will ensure that Welsh manufacturing and Welsh jobs are placed at the heart of turbine and substructure fabrication, starting with the vital seabed licensing process.

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are the world leader in floating offshore wind and we are determined to stay there in order to realise the industrial benefits, which he rightly champions, and the opportunities in Wales. The floating wind demonstration programme—[Interruption.] The Labour Front-Bench team really do not like to hear this, do they? The fact that we have cut our emissions more than any other major economy on earth under this Government is what leads those on the Labour Front Bench to sense their own inadequacy, because they know what they left behind. That floating wind demonstration programme is supporting innovation with £31 million of Government funding matched by £30 million from industry.

Philip Hollobone: Floating offshore wind and all these exciting generation technologies are wonderful, but all of them will come to nought unless we can increase the speed and capacity of the grid connections to get the electricity onshore and to the users who need it. What is the Minister doing to sort out the national grid and to speed up the way in which grid connections are made, because, without this, we will go nowhere?

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend puts it so well. It is so true: whatever the generation, if we cannot get the electrons where they need to go, we are frustrated. That is why we are determined to speed up the connections.  That is why, from the Pick report on offshore wind to the Nick Winser review, this Government, led by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie)—this is the first time that this country has had a networks Minister—are absolutely focused, in a laser-like way, on making sure that we speed up and get the delivery of the infrastructure that we need to deliver the green transition.

Onshore Wind Proposals: Community Engagement

Alexander Stafford: What steps his Department has taken to ensure local community engagement in onshore wind proposals.

Andrew Bowie: The Government want communities to participate in and benefit from onshore wind proposed in their local area. On 11 May, the Government issued a consultation for onshore wind partnerships in England, proposing improvements to the current system of community engagement and benefits.

Alexander Stafford: Some energy firms give discounts to those who live near onshore wind farms when the wind blows. Unfortunately, though, that is not the case everywhere. Will the Minister look again at this policy nationally so that my constituents, such as those who live in Ulley near Penny Hill wind farm, and even myself—I live in Harthill near Loscar wind farm—will see the benefits of clean, green wind power reflected in their energy bills?

Andrew Bowie: The consultation on onshore wind partnerships proposed that the Government work with RenewableUK to update the industry-wide community benefits protocol for onshore wind in England. An updated protocol would seek to encourage more innovative approaches, for example through developers supporting local energy bill discounts. The consultation closes on 7 July.

Anna McMorrin: I am not sure there is much point in community engagement when there is no onshore wind. We do not have any onshore wind. Last week, we heard the Climate Change Committee’s devastating report on this country’s commitment to net zero. When will this Government unlock the barriers to onshore wind?

Andrew Bowie: I completely refute the suggestion that we have no onshore wind. Onshore wind contributes 14 GW of power to the UK’s national grid as we speak, and of course we support the deployment of onshore wind with communities.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come now to the shadow Minister.

Alan Whitehead: The Minister is sort of right that there have been some onshore wind turbines built just recently—two since February 2022, so there is not much chance of community engagement there, to be honest. In December, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities promised that the onshore wind ban would be completely lifted by the end of April this year. Why have the Government broken that promise?

Andrew Bowie: I will take no lectures from the Labour party on developing renewable electricity. When Labour left office in 2010—[Interruption.] They do not like to hear this, but when Labour left office in 2010, less than 7% of the grid was accounted for by renewables. Now it is 43%.

Alan Whitehead: I think maybe the Government should take lessons from Labour. It is now generally understood that the Government consultation is likely to lead to only minimal relaxation of planning rules and that onshore wind will effectively remain banned. Tory peer Lord Deben, chairman of the Climate Change Committee, said of the consultation on Saturday that it is simply unacceptable that the Government are still discussing whether they are in favour of onshore wind or not when it is widely recognised as one of the cheapest forms of energy generation. He is right, is he not?

Andrew Bowie: I really wish the Labour party would stop talking down what we are doing on renewable electricity. I remind the House that the consultation on onshore wind finishes on 7 July.

Energy and Trade Intensive Industries

Heather Wheeler: What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of additional support for energy and trade intensive industries.

Amanda Solloway: Wholesale energy prices have fallen significantly since the peak of the energy crisis, so the energy bill discount scheme strikes a balance between providing support and certainty to business and limiting the impact on public finances.

Heather Wheeler: I thank my hon. Friend for a proper Derbyshire answer. Can she give more information on how the Government are working to help wedding venues and hospitality in general with extreme costs for electricity and gas, particularly where businesses have signed long-term contracts in the face of falling world prices?

Amanda Solloway: I thank my hon. Friend from South Derbyshire—it is a great county to live in, with great hospitality—for her question. Businesses, including the hospitality sector, have already benefited from the energy bill relief scheme, which ended on 31 March and provided £7.4 billion of support. We are mindful of the fixed-term contracts, which are a supplier issue, and we are constantly engaging with stakeholders and suppliers on that.

Catherine McKinnell: Last week I attended the opening of the first phase of a new solar farm at Newcastle airport. It was 50% funded by the regional development fund, which post Brexit we no longer have access to. The further three phases are vital to ensure that the airport meets its net zero target and the Government meet their solar target, so what are the Government doing to ensure that those further three phases will be supported in some way by the Government?

Amanda Solloway: I thank the hon. Lady for that information. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take that question away and find out more details.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Kerry McCarthy: The director general of UK Steel said this week:
“There are huge question marks over if government really wants to sustain steel, the backbone of British manufacturing, or just leave it to shrink and rely on other nations’ supply.”
He is right to say that. It is four years since the Government promised the green steel fund, but not a penny has been paid. Why are the Government failing our steel communities so comprehensively?

Amanda Solloway: That is absolutely not true; we are legislating for that at the moment. It is incredibly important to the Government that we combat that and support the energy and trade-intensive industries.

Kerry McCarthy: The Committee on Climate Change said last week that
“the Government has high ambitions for decarbonisation but no policy to deliver it”.
We have been slow to react to the US Inflation Reduction Act and to the EU’s proposed green deal industrial plan. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who, for the benefit of the Minister, is not from the Labour Benches, said:
“Where the UK once led, we are now falling behind.”
When will Ministers snap out of their appalling complacency and come up with the strategy and timeline that we need to support the UK in the global race for green jobs and investment?

Amanda Solloway: We have met all our carbon targets and will continue to do so. The Government have made the commitment to continue hitting and progressing on those targets.

Clean Energy Projects: Planning System

Clive Efford: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on the adequacy of the planning system for clean energy projects.

Andrew Bowie: My Department has been working closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on delivering the proposals in the published action plan for reforming and speeding up the nationally significant infrastructure project planning process. An important part of those reforms involves updating and strengthening the national policy statements for energy.

Clive Efford: Last weekend, James Robottom, the head of onshore wind at RenewableUK, said that he does not expect much from the Government’s consultation on planning. He said that obstacles to new onshore wind development would
“severely hinder investment in the onshore wind industry and its supply chain due to the high level of risk and uncertainty they create. We are being denied the opportunity for thousands of new jobs and billions in private investment”.
In the meantime, that is costing English families £180 per year. It means damage to the economy, damage to the environment, and higher bills for families. Is it not time that we got this useless Government out of the way so that we can sort it out?

Andrew Bowie: This useless Government who have delivered 43% renewables on to the grid! I would much rather take our record on renewables than the Labour party’s any day of the week. The consultation on national policy statements closed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on 23 June, and the Government remain on track to present them to Parliament and bring them into effect by the end of 2023.

James Gray: Local authorities have a presumption in favour of solar, and quite right, too, but should they not also consider the cumulative effect of solar farms? Wiltshire is the second largest county in England for solar farms. If the new Red Barn project at Kington St Michael is added, it will be one of the largest solar farms in Britain. We are covering our good agricultural land with solar farms in counties such as Wiltshire. When the forthcoming planning policy guidance is reconsidered, will the Minister undertake to include a presumption against solar farms on grade 3a and 3b agricultural land?

Andrew Bowie: Food security is incredibly important, and we will, of course, prioritise less productive land for the deployment of solar farms. Our reforms aim to ensure that infrastructure developers consider, at the outset of their programmes, how projects can address the legitimate concerns of affected communities, engaging regularly with them throughout the pre-application phase and beyond. Engaging with statutory consultees early during the pre-application stage will also benefit local communities and farmers through high-quality applications.

Energy Security: Gas Imports from Russia

Gagan Mohindra: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of ending gas imports from Russia on energy security.

Grant Shapps: Ending Russian imports in April 2022 has shown that Russian gas belongs in the past. Our system was well supplied last winter by North sea gas and reliable imports—a far cry from Labour’s energy surrender plan, sponsored by Just Stop Oil, which would put us back at square one and in the hands of despots such as Putin and his tyrannical regime.

Gagan Mohindra: I welcome the Secretary of State’s answer. Could he explain what steps his Department is taking to ensure that no country will ever be able to hold the UK to ransom through our energy supply?

Grant Shapps: It is about having a balanced energy supply, which means renewables, nuclear power, and yes, where necessary, oil and gas licences—to do without them puts the security of every single person in this country at risk and means that household bills will go up. Sadly, that is exactly the policy of His Majesty’s official Opposition.

Caroline Lucas: A recent report by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit shows that, regardless of Ministers’ plans to expand domestic oil and gas production, imports of gas will continue to rise significantly unless we tackle demand. New oil and gas licences simply will not deliver energy security as the oil and gas is sold at global prices on international markets. They will cost the taxpayer dearly while being a disaster for the climate. Will the Government finally do what is needed by ruling out new licences and committing instead to measures that will genuinely make the UK energy secure, including a nationwide street-by-street home insulation programme, unblocking onshore wind, and installing new solar on every roof?

Grant Shapps: We have gone from 14% of our homes being insulated under the previous Government to nearly 50%—it will be 50% this year—and we have set up an energy taskforce to reduce the usage of energy and make it more efficient. However, the policy of the hon. Lady’s party, and that of the official Opposition, of importing all the oil and gas that we require and not providing new licences is simply insane. It means that every single family in Britain will be subject to the next tyrant like Putin, and that the carbon used will be double what is taken from the North sea. It is bonkers policy.

Net Zero Target: Population Increases

Christopher Chope: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of increases in the population on the ability to meet net zero targets.

Graham Stuart: Population growth is taken into account when setting our decarbonisation goals. Specifically, it is accounted for in our baseline emissions projections, which help determine the effort required to meet our carbon targets.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in 2050, on present Government policies, we will have 25 million more people in this country than there were in 1990, the base date for carbon dioxide emissions? He obviously accepts that a higher population leads to higher global emissions, but can he also say that when it comes to climate change, it would be a good idea for this Government to concentrate on a net migration policy, rather than net zero?

Graham Stuart: As my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister is absolutely determined to bring net migration down to sustainable levels. I would also point out to him that the UK does not set decarbonisation targets per capita, because all countries need to reduce emissions in absolute terms. We are determined to play our part in doing that—to move to net zero, but in a pro-growth, pro-business manner.

Kenny MacAskill: It is not simply about empowering future generations, but those that exist. That is why the roll-out of smart metering is important. The latest quarterly statistics claim that 57% of UK households have smart meters, but that masks the fact that only four out of 32 Scottish local authorities are above 50% in the roll-out of smart metering, five are below 30%, and three island councils  are below 10%. All those are also the areas with the highest fuel poverty. As we approach March 2024, when radio teleswitching will go off, how will we ensure that people have access to smart metering, enabling them to get off-peak tariffs?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is right, both to enthuse about the importance of smart metering and the benefits it can bring—even more so as we move forward in the coming years—and to highlight the importance of ensuring, as ever, that something so important is equitably distributed. I, or colleagues, would be happy to meet him to discuss how we make sure that the issues he has rightly raised are addressed.

Rooftop Solar Panels

Laurence Robertson: What steps he is taking to increase the use of solar panels on building roofs; and if he will make a statement.

Grant Shapps: The Government are supporting the installation of rooftop solar in numerous different ways: financial incentives, performance standards and the solar taskforce.

Laurence Robertson: For years now, I have been trying to persuade Governments of all colours to change building regulations to require all new buildings to be fitted with solar panels. That would have the benefit of securing supply, reducing household bills considerably and helping us towards net zero, so why do we not do it?

Grant Shapps: I assure my hon. Friend that I am a great enthusiast for solar panels—I have had them on my home for the past 12 years, and they perform very well. I want to see more people do that. In fact, over that period, we have gone from virtually no renewables in our system—6.9%—to 43% in the last quarter. I am very keen for that expansion to go further and faster. We need to ensure that it is part of the building code, but we also want to make sure that other forms of renewables can be installed, so it is a balance between not being too prescriptive and making sure that we make speedy progress, particularly on all the commercial rooftops in this country.

Stephen Doughty: A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of visiting an innovative housing project in Rumney in my constituency, which had solar panels in nearly all the new buildings but also ground source heat pumps, electric vehicle charging points and battery technology in the houses, bringing down bills for the residents while contributing to net zero. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising Cardiff’s Labour council and the Welsh Labour Government for the work they have done on this issue, and will he explain what we are doing to ensure greater manufacture of those technologies in this country?

Grant Shapps: Of course, I am delighted that the Barnett formula stretches so far in providing some of the excellent additions to those buildings. I just want to repeat that no Government have gone further and faster in the G7 than this one in introducing renewables and ensuring that they now power a very significant part of  our grid. We want to go further and faster still, and we will make sure that things such as building codes help with that plan.

Net Zero Projects: Skills

Stephen Farry: What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the adequacy of workforce skills for delivering net zero projects.

Amanda Solloway: We recognise that having the right skills within the workforce is critical, which is why we established the green jobs delivery group.

Stephen Farry: The Climate Change Committee has expressed concern that the UK is falling behind on a range of net zero commitments, including on skills. A skilled workforce, alongside new green jobs, is a key component of the green new deal, but the workforce plan is not due until 2024. In the light of the urgency of addressing climate change, will the Government commit to bring that forward to some time later this year?

Amanda Solloway: We are working as quickly as we can on ensuring this. The new skills that will be required are really beneficial for the UK economy, so we are keen to work with the green jobs delivery group and the Department for Education in looking at apprenticeships and how we can push this forward as quickly as possible.

Clean Energy Technology: Private Sector Investment

Nicola Richards: What steps he is taking to encourage private sector investment in clean energy technologies.

Kieran Mullan: What steps he is taking to encourage private sector investment in clean energy technologies.

Graham Stuart: Our “Powering up Britain” plan seizes opportunities from the transition to a decarbonised energy system. Our policies, backed by billions of pounds of Government funding—but more importantly, leveraging in about £100 billion of private investment—will support up to 480,000 jobs in 2030.

Nicola Richards: Enfinium is building a new energy-from-waste facility in my constituency, which will process nearly 400,000 tonnes of waste to generate electricity for more than 95,000 homes and businesses each year. Will the Minister join me in welcoming this investment in renewable energy, and outline how the Government are supporting energy-from-waste facilities across the country?

Graham Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend, and I am delighted to join her in welcoming this new investment, which will be a huge asset to her community as well as having positive national implications. Energy from waste with combined heat and power is supported through pot 1 of the contracts for difference scheme—our auction system. We expect to announce the results of the latest round in early September, and I hope the House will watch that announcement with great interest.

Kieran Mullan: What assessment has the Minister made of the role of a tariff support mechanism to encourage short-term private sector investment in deep geothermal to support levelling up?

Graham Stuart: There is no greater champion than—or anyone in this House with half the knowledge of this, as far as I can tell—my hon. Friend in supporting the potential of deep geothermal. When the Prime Minister responded to his report, I know he thanked my hon. Friend for all the work that went into it. I can confirm that geothermal technologies that generate electricity are eligible for the contracts for difference scheme. We are also supporting and encouraging the development of geothermal heating projects through the green heat network fund, which supports the development of low-carbon heat networks. Under the leadership of my hon. Friend, I am confident that geothermal has a positive future.

Emma Hardy: Private sector businesses in the Humber are ready and willing to invest £15 billion in carbon capture, storage and decarbonisation projects. However, this is being put at risk because, of the eight track 1 carbon capture and storage projects selected, not a single project was approved for the Humber, despite the Humber being the largest carbon emitter in the country and the fact that 80% of the UK’s licensed CO2 storage capacity is accessible from the Humber. When will these businesses get the clarity they need? When the track 1 expansion process is launched, will both Humber pipelines be approved?

Graham Stuart: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and she is right to be frustrated because of the enormous potential both to decarbonise and to unlock industrial benefits for the area. We are moving as quickly as possible. I have already said that the Viking project and the Scottish cluster are in the favoured position, and the team is moving as quickly as possible this year to provide more certainty and unlock further investment.

Tim Farron: Private sector investment in clean energy is vital, but does the Minister agree that one reason that the United Kingdom, despite having the highest tidal range on planet Earth after Canada, still uses so little of it, is a lack of public sector leadership? Areas such as Morecambe Bay, which could contribute to tidal energy, bringing down people’s bills and protecting us against Putin, are something that we could move forward. Will the Minister agree to meet me and other MPs around the bay, so that we can bring forward plans to get the most out of our tidal energy?

Graham Stuart: I am not an expert in the hon. Gentleman’s history on this topic, but I hope it has been consistently in favour of tidal energy, and therefore different from so many other areas of policy. I share his enthusiasm for the potential of tidal energy. That is why we are the world’s leading nation in the deployment of tidal range, and why tidal power is eligible for the contracts for difference scheme. Notwithstanding so many issues, I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Community Energy Projects

Ben Bradshaw: What steps he plans to take to support the development of community energy projects.

Andrew Bowie: The Government are supporting local authorities and community energy groups to work together to develop projects within UK growth funding schemes, such as the UK shared prosperity fund.Ofgem also welcomes funding applications from the sector to the industry voluntary redress scheme.

Ben Bradshaw: Why did the Government remove amendments from the Energy Bill last week that would have supported community energy and local energy trading?

Andrew Bowie: As we have outlined previously, the Government do not support the amendments that were tabled in the Lords, and believe that the issues raised should be considered as part of wider market reform. However, we are proactively working with parliamentarians and the community energy sector to discuss whether further support from the Government for the sector is needed, and if so, what might be feasible.

Prepayment Meters

Anna Firth: What energy cost support his Department has provided to customers on traditional prepayment meters.

Amanda Solloway: The Government have provided support to customers on traditional prepayment meters through the energy bills support scheme and energy price guarantee.

Anna Firth: I very much welcome the measures that the Government have announced to support those on traditional prepayment meters, but many residents in Southend West, such as those living in Trafford House in Leigh-on-Sea, are on communal heat networks. They are still facing higher prices and have no control whatsoever over their heating. What are the Government doing to encourage heat suppliers to apply for the energy bill discount scheme ahead of the deadline at the end of this month, which will benefit my constituents who have no control over their energy bills?

Amanda Solloway: My hon. Friend is a great advocate for all her constituents, and she will be interested to hear that the Government are committed to supporting domestic heat network customers with their bills. That is why we introduced the energy bills discount scheme heat network support, which aims to ensure that heat network customers do not face disappointingly higher bills compared with customers in equivalent households.

Martyn Day: Can the Minister tell us the value of prepayment meter vouchers not cashed by the 30 June deadline? What can the Government do to ensure that support reaches those people who are eligible to get it?

Amanda Solloway: All hon. Members will know how abhorrent we found the use of forced entry to people’s houses over prepayment meters. However, we have worked hard and consistently to ensure that all those on prepayment meters are treated fairly and given support.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors

Rob Roberts: What steps he is taking to introduce small modular nuclear reactors into the energy mix.

John Spellar: When his Department plans to complete its competitive process for small modular nuclear reactor technologies.

Andrew Bowie: I am pleased, and indeed proud, to say that Great British Nuclear will be holding a competition for small modular reactors, because we want to attract the best designs from both domestic and international vendors. The Government’s ambition is to select the leading technologies by autumn, providing co-funding to any viable new technology. Our commitment to a nuclear programme and to Great British Nuclear will enable the UK to be on a path to achieve its ambition to become a global leader in nuclear energy and small modular reactors.

Rob Roberts: As members of the Welsh Affairs Committee heard during a visit to the United States in January, small modular reactors should play a significant role in transition, alongside large-scale nuclear projects. Does the Minister agree that while north-west Wales has excellent scope for large-scale projects, parts of north-east Wales would be outstanding prospects for an SMR site, as well as capitalising on the region’s amazing manufacturing and engineering capabilities to drive that part of the energy mix forward?

Andrew Bowie: The Government recognise the support for nuclear power across north Wales. Great British Nuclear will work with the Government on access to potential sites for new nuclear projects to achieve our long-term ambition. As a first step towards the development of the new national policy statement for nuclear, we will consult later this year on a proposed way forward for determining how new nuclear developments, including SMRs, might be located.

John Spellar: The Minister will know that this country has been producing small nuclear reactors for our submarines for more than 50 years. Does the Minister understand that while he is dithering around with his time-wasting international competition, those international competitors are out there in the market getting the orders and selling, backed to the hilt by their own Governments? Is this going to be yet another great British development created by our scientists, engineers and skilled trades, but allowed to slip away by blinkered civil servants and weak Ministers who cannot make a decision?

Andrew Bowie: Rolls-Royce is a great British company, which is why we previously made up to £210 million available from the advanced nuclear fund to Rolls-Royce SMR Ltd to support the development of its small modular reactor design. Great British Nuclear will launch the first-stage selection process for small modular reactors,  which is expected to attract the best designs from domestic and international vendors, which will be great for this country. By the way, we are going three times faster than any comparable country on this project.

Energy Costs: Support for Households

Hannah Bardell: What plans he has to support households with energy costs in winter 2023-24.

Amanda Solloway: The Government are committed to cheap energy for all. Last winter, we covered half a typical energy bill through the combined support of the energy price guarantee and the energy bill support scheme since October, with a typical household saving around £1,500 by the end of June.

Hannah Bardell: There is a huge gulf between the reality and the practice of the Government. The Public Accounts Committee has warned this Tory Government about their lack of planning on support for consumers with the cost of energy this winter. Lack of preparedness seems a serious ailment within this Government. Given that Sense research has found that more than 30% of disabled people are cutting back on their use of medical equipment, when will we get a proper plan from this Government, instead of the profiteering off the backs of the most vulnerable, as we see from so many energy companies?

Amanda Solloway: We are of course making plans, and I do not accept that we are not planning. We are also talking to stakeholders and ensuring that we are giving the best support we can to all those who will be vulnerable in winter 2023-24.

Topical Questions

Ruth Cadbury: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Grant Shapps: Next week will mark the 500-day anniversary since Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine and began trying to blackmail the world on energy. As ever, Britain stood strong in the face of tyranny, and I am pleased to report that from Saturday just past, energy bills are falling by an average of 17% for households. We are committed to powering Britain from Britain, despite some alarming energy surrender plans coming from the Opposition.

Ruth Cadbury: The Climate Change Committee’s report published last week found that of the policies and consultations that are the responsibility of the Secretary of State’s Department, no less than 33 are overdue. He cannot blame anyone else. Will he now own up to the Government’s appalling failure?

Grant Shapps: The actual data argues the opposite way. We have met all our carbon budgets to date. The Climate Change Committee last week said that the chances of reaching carbon budget 4 are “slightly increased”. We are confident of meeting it, and we have   set out our plans for carbon budgets 5 and 6. I have to say that given that this country has the best record in the world among developed nations for getting carbon under control, it is surprising to hear the Opposition’s view.

Mark Fletcher: Our domestic nuclear sector and our military are struggling to recruit and retain enough nuclear engineers. What discussions is the Minister having with the sector and the Department for Education to create a long-term workforce plan to solve the issue?

Andrew Bowie: Since day one, the skills challenges that we face have been a top priority for me, which is why my Department is working closely with the Ministry of Defence, the DFE and the sector to tackle them. With the employer-led Nuclear Skills Strategy Group, we have deployed a joint plan of skills actions to support the civil and defence programmes, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Ed Miliband: Six days ago, the Climate Change Committee delivered its most scathing assessment in its history on the Government’s record, saying that they were off track on 41 out of 50 key targets. It said that we have gone “markedly” backwards in the past year, on the Secretary of State’s watch. Who does he blame for this failure?

Grant Shapps: As has been discussed more than once in these questions and answers, we have taken this country from having only 7% renewable energy to over 40%. We have decarbonised faster than any other G7 nation and we are on track for carbon budget 4, having already overdelivered on carbon budgets 1, 2 and 3. Based on our record to date, we are doing a pretty good job.

Ed Miliband: That answer is total complacency from a Secretary of State who has just been proven to be failing on every major aspect of his agenda. That is why Lord Goldsmith resigned. Lord Deben has said he is failing, and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has said that we are losing the global race. Is not the truth now that even the Tories do not trust the Tories on the climate crisis?

Grant Shapps: This is one of the problems with not being prepared to follow the data, which shows us overdelivering on the commitments of carbon budgets 1, 2 and 3, and that we are more likely to meet carbon budget 4 than we were a year ago. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to ignore all that and still roll out his pre-written question, that is how we get to his conclusions. The truth is that the Government are delivering on the issues of climate change while protecting every single household in the country from Putin’s tyranny. I am afraid that has already been surrendered by the right hon. Gentleman, who subscribes to the Just Stop Oil approach.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can I just ask the Secretary of State to please not take advantage? This is topicals. Please tell me if you want to pick a Member who you do not want to be able to ask their question.

Philip Davies: Will the Minister tell the House what his latest assessment is of the full financial cost to the United Kingdom of reaching net zero, and, if the UK reaches net zero, what difference that would make to global temperatures?

Graham Stuart: We estimate that the net cost excluding air quality and emissions-saving benefits will be equivalent to about 1% to 2% of GDP in 2050. As my hon. Friend knows, emissions are global, and we all need to play our part. The UK has a part to play in tandem with others, and that is why I will be working with other Ministers at the conference of the parties in Dubai.

Mick Whitley: The Climate Change Committee has slammed the Government for their failure on energy efficiency, with the number of homes helped under the energy company obligation having fallen by half between 2021 to 2022 and now standing at a tenth of the level under the last Labour Government. Instead of the usual complacent nonsense, will the Minister explain why the Government are failing to insulate Britain’s homes and what he will do about it?

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is right to be frustrated about progress. But as the Secretary of State said, when the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who is chuntering on the Front Bench, was in power, just 14% of homes were decently insulated; by the end of the year, it will be more than 50%. We have set up the energy efficiency taskforce because we want to go further and faster. We are determined to do more. We are spending £12.6 billion over this Parliament and the next, and—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Robbie Moore: Many businesses across my constituency, including Lishman’s butchers and Clip ’n Climb in Ilkley, have kindly contacted me about needing additional support to help with their energy prices. The Government have done a huge amount to support domestic users, but will the Minister outline what more support can be provided to small independent businesses?

Amanda Solloway: My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that the Government provided more than £7.4 billion of support to businesses—more than £35 million a day—through the energy bill relief scheme last winter.

Mary Foy: Mine water heating is an emerging technology that employs the heat stored in former mines to heat buildings. It is low-carbon and efficient, and it could be a boon for our country, especially in deindustrialised areas such as County Durham that experience high levels of fuel poverty. What forms of support is the Minister offering? Will he meet me to discuss how we can take this forward in the north-east?

Graham Stuart: I share the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm. We are taking steps to support this technology, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss it further.

Philip Hollobone: Lots of green renewable energy is generated in Northamptonshire. For the last year for which figures are available, what was the total output, and the breakdown by type?

Graham Stuart: Unfortunately, we do not have public data by constituency and do not yet have the full data for 2022. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that in 2021, north Northamptonshire generated a total of 362 GWh of renewable electricity. The people of Kettering, like their representative, want Kettering to be one of the greenest constituencies in the country.

Olivia Blake: The Secretary of State has signalled that his party will finally drop the nonsensical proposed hydrogen levy—another welcome Government U-turn. Will he confirm that it is, in fact, a U-turn? Will he outline exactly how the much-needed investment in green hydrogen technology will be paid for without already struggling households being made to foot the bill? [R]

Grant Shapps: The whole House will welcome the hydrogen economy as an important way to store power. It is becoming increasingly apparent that that power is most likely to be used in heavy industry as well as heavy transport. This Government are committed to hydrogen power, but we are also keen to ensure that it does not impact on people’s energy bills, just as those bills are starting to fall thanks to the support that we provided families with this past winter.

Peter Aldous: The contracts for difference auctions have been very successful in kickstarting the British success story that is offshore wind.  However, the mechanism now needs adaptation to maximise job creation in places such as Lowestoft and to ensure that we adopt a strategic approach to the provision of enabling infrastructure such as ports and the grid. I would welcome an update from my right hon. Friend on the Government’s work on this important issue.

Graham Stuart: I could only just hear my hon. Friend’s question, as the shadow Secretary of State made it quite hard to hear. The Government recently completed a call for evidence on this very subject, looking at the introduction of non-price factors in the contracts for difference scheme so that it values things other than just cost deployment. My hon. Friend, like all Members on the Government Front Bench, wants the maximum number of jobs created and retained in this country.

Catherine McKinnell: Lord Deben has urged the Government to
“find the courage to place climate change once again at the heart of its leadership.”
Does the Minister share concerns that the Prime Minister and, therefore, this Government are just too weak to stand up to their Back Benchers and really grasp the opportunity and necessity?

Andrew Bowie: It was this Prime Minister who created the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and it is this Government who have delivered more than 43% renewable electricity on to the grid. We will take no lectures from the Labour party on combating climate change.

Lia Nici: Will my hon. Friend please outline what his Department is doing to look at the import of green hydrogen feedstock into the UK, to increase the scale and speed of the UK industry and help us achieve our 10 GW capacity by 2020?

Graham Stuart: I am aware of proposals on the shipping and possible piping of hydrogen and the important part that must play. If we are to decarbonise all of British industry, we will need shipping as well as piping. I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what further we can do.

Alex Cunningham: I very much welcome the recent progress on developing carbon capture, usage and storage on Teesside. I hope we will see the final confirmation that it will happen and the work will start. That said, local industrialists and investors are concerned that the Department is not now asking BP to build the CO2 collection pipework as originally planned, meaning that it will not go to CF Fertilisers or Kellas or pass by the Alfanar site. Could the Minister provide an update, please?

Graham Stuart: We are moving at top speed to drive forward CCUS. We are in a world-leading position. The opportunity is enormous in the Tees, the Humber and areas in the north-west as we seek to get that right and embed those industries in this country.

George Eustice: The unique geology of Cornwall means that there is huge potential for geothermal energy. There are a number of projects bidding for the current allocation round. Geothermal energy has a competitive strike price, has lithium as a by-product and makes use of mature technology. Will the Secretary of State ensure that those benefits are properly factored into any assessments?

Grant Shapps: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the opportunities of geothermal. He will be pleased to know that it just received a potential allocation through the contracts for difference round. As he and other hon. Friends have pointed out, geothermal has great potential in this country, and we look forward to supporting it.

Dave Doogan: Communities in Padanaram, Forfar, Aberlemno and Stracathro in my constituency have been on the receiving end of an extraordinarily flawed consultation by SSEN—Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks—on taking a 400 kV line from Tealing to Kintore. I welcome the investment, but can the Minister advise on the minimum standards for consultations on capital infrastructure of this nature, and why will Ofgem not mandate that there is a community benefit?

Grant Shapps: I will, with the hon. Gentleman’s permission, arrange to write back to him in a more detailed structure, given that the development is  actually in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie).

Andrew Jones: Unlocking access to the grid will unlock significant private sector capital ready to come in for microgeneration of battery storage projects. Can my hon. Friend give me an update on the timing for the Winser review and the Government’s response to it?

Andrew Bowie: The Government have received Nick Winser’s review and it will be published imminently.

Nia Griffith: Following a debate in Westminster Hall on making heritage buildings more sustainable, will the Secretary of State undertake to meet his colleague the Minister with responsibility for culture to push for the urgent revision of guidelines to allow greater flexibility in the siting of solar panels and other renewable installations on heritage buildings, in order to make them more environmentally sustainable and economically viable?

Amanda Solloway: Speaking for myself, I would be delighted to have a meeting on that subject.

Mark Pawsey: At a time when the cost of generating electricity is falling thanks to the increasing use of renewables, my constituents do not understand why the price of electricity remains linked to the price of gas. I know that the Government are undertaking a review of electricity market arrangements. When might they expect to see a change?

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is quite right to ask that question. We would all like to see gas setting the price of electricity less frequently. That is why we are   accelerating the take-up of renewables, which were so pitifully low in quantity when Labour was in power. We need a Conservative Government to keep up progress and lower bills right across the country.

Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State outlined the progress being made on small modular nuclear reactors. Can he provide an estimate of how many there might be within 10 years?

Andrew Bowie: Great British Nuclear will be launched later in July. We will also be launching the draw-down selection process for which technologies we will invest in and support. I would be delighted to speak to the hon. Gentleman in more detail about that progress moving forward.

Patrick Grady: I think my constituents, not least those who are part of the Glasgow Community Energy co-operative, will be disappointed with the Minister’s answer to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). The Minister is extremely familiar with the clauses that form part of the proposed community energy Bill. They are not acceptable as amendments to the Energy Bill before this House. Will the Government bring forward their own amendments, so that community energy groups can have the confidence they need to take forward their projects?

Andrew Bowie: As I said, we are working with the sector and parliamentarians to find a way forward to further support community energy projects. As part of that, I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it further.

Violence in the West Bank

Beth Winter: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the violence in the west bank.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The accelerating cycle of violence in the west bank risks another round of bloodshed and the Government are doing everything possible to urge the de-escalation of the situation. The latest operation by the Israel Defence Forces in the Jenin refugee camp in the northern west bank on Monday is the latest episode in a conflict that has become more worrying as the year has progressed. While the UK firmly supports Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens against terrorism, we urge the Israel Defence Forces to demonstrate restraint, adhere to the principles of international humanitarian law and prioritise the protection of civilians.
While the security situation today remains fragile, the UK welcomed Israeli and Palestinian engagement at meetings in Aqaba on 26 February and Sharm El Sheik on 19 March. We are clear-eyed that those meetings have not been a silver bullet, but they are an open, meaningful channel of communication between senior Israelis and Palestinians. At times of strife, this is important in assisting de-escalation and reducing violence. We have consistently engaged with both the Israelis and the Palestinians to urge them to de-escalate tensions and to support efforts towards renewed negotiations.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Eli Cohen, on 26 June—when they discussed the security situation in the west bank—having spoken to the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mohammad Shtayyeh, on 16 June. I can confirm that the Minister for the Middle East, Lord Ahmad, will be discussing the evolving situation with the Israeli ambassador later today, further to discussions in recent days. He also spoke to the Palestinian Foreign Minister, Riyad al-Maliki, on 5 May. Our ambassadors in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem regularly speak to both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority to urge de-escalation and to make clear our expectation that all sides avoid unilateral steps that move the parties further away from dialogue.
Let me finally draw the House’s attention to the statement that the Foreign Secretary made jointly with his Canadian and Australian counterparts last Friday. The UK opposes Israel’s announced proposal to expand settlements across the west bank, and we ask Israel to halt and reverse its policy of supporting settlement expansion. Settlements are not the only obstacle to peace, but they are an important one, and our concerns about these recent steps are clear. The lives lost in this wider conflict are tragic. There is an urgent need for all parties to avoid further escalation in the west bank and Gaza, now and in the days ahead.

Beth Winter: The past 24 hours have seen a horrifying military assault by the Israel Defence Forces on the overcrowded refugee camp in Jenin. The UN Refugee Agency says that about 15,000 people live in less than half a square kilometre in the camp, yet we have all witnessed on our screens the Israel Defence Forces  launching air attacks, including attacks from drones, and they have sent in hundreds, if not thousands, of ground troops in the largest military action in the west bank for 20 years. News agencies are reporting 10 deaths of Palestinians, including three children, and 100 Palestinians injured, while the Palestinian Red Crescent says that it has evacuated 3,000 people. The UN’s Vanessa Huguenin has said:
“We are alarmed at the scale of air and ground operations that are taking place in Jenin”.
The World Health Organisation has said:
“First responders have been prevented from entering the refugee camp”.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority leadership has resolved to
“immediately petition the UN Security Council to implement Resolution 2334 and the relevant resolutions on providing international protection to the Palestinian people, stopping unilateral measures, and imposing sanctions on the occupying power.”
The UK currently holds the presidency of the UN Security Council and is therefore responsible for guiding its response to requests made by the Palestinian Authority. May I therefore ask the following questions? What are the UK Government doing in their capacity as President of the UN Security Council? How have they responded at the UN to the Palestinian Authority’s call for international protection? What has the Foreign Office said to its Israeli counterpart about the Israel Defence Forces preventing medical staff from accessing the Jenin refugee camp, or firing tear gas into hospitals sheltering children and elderly residents?
Finally, what steps will the Foreign Secretary take to review whether the IDF have made any use of UK arms sold to Israel in this attack? Will he immediately suspend all arms sales, including surveillance technology, and will he ban collaboration between the UK and Israel’s armed forces and military industries as a result of this horrific attack on civilians?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the urgent question to the House. This is a matter of deep concern to us all. We will continue to urge the Israel Defence Forces to demonstrate restraint in this operation so that all parties can try to avoid further escalation in the west bank and Gaza. As I have said, while the UK will always support Israel’s right to self-defence, the protection of civilians, particularly children, must always be prioritised, and we expect the armed forces’ conduct always to be in line with international humanitarian law. We therefore call on Israel to adhere to those principles of necessity and proportionality while defending its legitimate security interest.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Alicia Kearns: We stand on the precipice of the Gaza crisis of 2023 and the third intifada. Yesterday, an Israeli military incursion into the Jenin refugee camp resulted in the deaths of more than 10 refugees. Hundreds were injured and, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) says, the ensuing gun battle has prevented civilians from getting the aid and medical care they need. Today, five Israeli civilians were killed in a terrorist car ramming and a stabbing, and we are in an endless cycle of violence. We need a return to the diplomatic table. Jordan and Egypt  have been trying to facilitate that and stand ready to continue to do so, but they must see meaningful efforts to stand up for the agreements reached at previous meetings, such as the one in Aqaba.
I therefore call on the Government to try to secure the following. The Israelis must stop the expansion of illegal settlements; we are seeing that continue and it must stop—they agreed to do that at Aqaba. We must see Hamas end its terror attacks on Israel. They are wrong—they are terror attacks—and although we have no influence over Hamas, we must use our voice to make it clear that it must immediately stop. As the UK, can we urge our Israeli friends to show restraint? Can we appoint a middle east peace process envoy who can be tasked with spending their entire time working with our allies around the region to de-escalate the situation? Our voice is unique and will be heard, and we have a role to play in the peace process. Finally, will we use our UN Security Council presidency? Through that role, we can shed light on what is taking place.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her salient and wise comments, as always. May I reiterate that on Friday the Foreign Secretary made a joint statement with the Canadians and Australians to set out very clearly our opposition to Israel’s announcement of the expansion of settlements across the west bank? We are asking Israel to halt and reverse that policy of settlement expansion with immediate effect.
More widely, of course, we recognise the very real security challenges facing Israel and the Palestinian Authority and condemn all terrorist groups planning and carrying out attacks, but we mourn the loss of innocent lives. Indeed, the injuries to civilians and particularly children are deeply concerning. We will continue to speak and our colleagues are speaking to our Israeli teams today about the urgent need for all parties to de-escalate and prevent the further loss of civilian life.

Wayne David: We must all be extremely concerned about the situation in the refugee camp in the city of Jenin, as well as the ongoing deteriorating situation in the conflict as a whole. Israel has the right to defend itself against militant groups, but that right must be exercised proportionately and in line with international law. I am therefore very concerned that reports suggest there are significant civilian casualties in Jenin. I am also aware that statements from the spokesman for the United Nations Secretary-General suggest that this military operation has not been conducted within the parameters of humanitarian law. The Secretary-General is said to be “deeply concerned” about the situation on the ground.
Likewise, I am extremely concerned about the breaking news of a suspected car ramming in Tel Aviv, where latest reports suggest that at least five people are injured. Can the Minister provide an urgent update on the situation? We will always condemn acts of terrorism, which only make peace harder to achieve.
On Jenin, I am concerned about reports that emergency health teams have been prevented from entering Jenin to treat the injured and to help people in general, and that two hospitals have been damaged. The World Health Organisation has reported that three children  have recently been killed. I am sure that everyone in the House will agree that it is truly appalling that children—Palestinian and Israeli—continue to be the innocent victims in this conflict. Does the Minister agree that all civilian deaths must be thoroughly and impartially investigated and that there must be meaningful accountability?
Let me be clear that the Opposition will continue to be strong and consistent advocates of justice, human rights and international law in this conflict. We also condemn the unacceptable use of violence against civilians in all circumstances. In our view, there will be a lasting peace only when there is a negotiated diplomatic settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only real solution will be a settlement based on two states: a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and independent Palestinian state. We strongly oppose actions that make this two-state solution harder to achieve. So my fundamental question is: what of substance are the Minister and the Government doing to bring this immediate conflict to an end and to lay the foundations for a two-state solution?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I do not have the latest information on the Tel Aviv attack, but I understand that Hamas are claiming it as one of theirs. We absolutely condemn Hamas’s use of indiscriminate violence and attacks of this nature. There can never be any justification for such acts of violence, and we will continue to call on Hamas and other terrorist groups to permanently end their incitements against Israel. Importantly, Ministers and our ambassadors will continue to work very closely, today and in the days ahead, to urge the de-escalation of the present situation in Jenin.

Crispin Blunt: Understanding that this comes in the context of, for years, Israel building settlements that block the route to a settlement of this dispute, and understanding that Israel is failing to show restraint, failing to follow international humanitarian law and failing to protect civilians, what are the Government actually going to do?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I say, the statement that the Foreign Secretary put out with his Canadian and Australian counterparts last week set out a clear message to the Israelis about stopping the settlement expansion. We will continue to work with our friends and allies to make that message clearly heard.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Drew Hendry: Violence on all sides must be condemned. However, contrary to what the Minister said, illegal settlements are a barrier to peace, yet the UK Government continue to fail to take any meaningful action towards preventing that. This violence represents a serious escalation of tensions on the west bank. As we have heard, Palestinians and Israelis have lost their lives. What assessment has been made of the potential chain reaction of violence that this could unleash?
It has been confirmed that thousands of people have been displaced from the camp. What discussions has the Minister had with international colleagues on how to minimise the suffering of those refugees— civilians—who have now been displaced twice? This morning, UN aid agencies voiced alarm at the scale of Israel’s military operation in Jenin, reporting that water and energy  supplies have been damaged, so will the UK Government commit to working with partners to provide additional humanitarian funding to restore these vital supplies for people there?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The UK’s position is clear: settlements are illegal under international law and they call into question Israel’s commitment to the two-state solution. So we have urged Israel to halt that settlement expansion, which is threatening the physical viability of a Palestinian state. To the hon. Gentleman’s point, we are working with our partners the United States, France, Germany and Italy to strongly oppose these unilateral steps.
I am afraid that I do not have the latest information on humanitarian funding, but our teams work very closely through the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration and other humanitarian organisations. I would be happy to ask the relevant Minister to update the House later on what the latest commitments are.

Bob Blackman: Clearly, this morning’s car ramming is only the most recent of the terrorist attacks that have emanated from the city of Jenin. So far, Operation House and Garden has resulted in the destruction of three labs, hundreds of improvised explosive devices and thousands of grenades. Underneath the mosque, there were two tunnels with hundreds of weapons, and 120 people have been arrested. Clearly, the terrorist activity is going to be severely limited. Behind all this is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hamas and the Jenin battalions. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that this is a proportionate attempt to reduce terrorism against the state of Israel?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I say, while the UK remains absolutely resolute in its commitment to Israel’s security, and we condemn absolutely the use of indiscriminate force by Hamas and other terrorist groups, we call on all parties to maintain a proportionate balance, so that we can de-escalate the existing situation and ensure that civilians are not caught up in this any more.

Afzal Khan: With water and electricity services in the Jenin refugee camp damaged as a result of the violence, camp residents are unable to move from their homes. Many are in urgent need of food, drinking water and medical support, but the ambulances have been prevented from reaching the wounded. Will the Secretary of State raise with the Israeli authorities the issue of access for ambulances and medical teams to the Jenin camp?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The FCDO Minister for the middle east, Lord Ahmad, will be listening to the debate and will be able to give an update in the other place later today about his ongoing discussions with Israeli counterparts.

Nicola Richards: Let us be clear: any loss of innocent civilian life is one too many. But let us also be clear that the Palestinian Authority has lost control over Jenin and it has become a safe haven for terrorists. Terror groups have fortified the area with IEDs and last week they fired rockets  towards Israel from inside the camp. Iran has also boasted about arming, training and funding the Palestinian terror groups that operate there. Does the Minister agree that it is in the interests of both the Palestinians and the Israelis that terror groups cease these operations, which only further destabilise the Palestinian Authority and the region, with innocent people dying as a consequence?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: We recognise the real security concerns facing Israel and the Palestinian Authority while they try to deal with those terrorist groups, and we condemn absolutely terrorist groups planning and carrying out attacks. To my hon. Friend’s point on the loss of innocent lives, every loss is one too many and there will also be a serious number of injuries to civilians. We continue to be deeply concerned by the cycle of violence in the west bank. The urgent need for all parties to de-escalate to prevent that loss of life remains critical.

Alistair Carmichael: Unless and until we acknowledge our own role in this developing tragedy, anything the Minister says at the Dispatch Box is essentially going to be meaningless. The increase in violence by the IDF and the expansion of settlement in the west bank happen because we and other countries in the west do nothing to hold Israel to account. So could the Minister tell us now: will she commit to supporting an International Criminal Court investigation into what is happening there? Will the Government here now set a timetable for the recognition of the Palestinian state?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: This Government and Members on both sides of the House do not waver from the two-state solution that we all wish to see. As I have said, settlements are illegal under international law and we will continue, alongside allies and partners, to make that point clear. As for the ongoing activity today, I hope that Lord Ahmad will be able to pick up on that later today as progress is made with our counterparts in Israel.

Desmond Swayne: But hasn’t our strategic partnership with Israel, announced in this House, afforded us any leverage over Israeli policy in the west bank?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Our strategic relationship with Israel is a strong and long-standing one. We work with Israel in many areas, from security to trade. It is an important partner. That does not negate the fact that we want to see a de-escalation of the current situation and to ensure that the loss of civilian lives is minimised.

Steve McCabe: I share the distress of others at the loss of civilian life. Islamic Jihad has already claimed several of the dead as Islamic Jihad fighters and, as we have heard, the Israelis say that the camp was used as a hub for terrorist operations. Does the Minister think any more can be done to prevent terrorists from embedding themselves among civilians, particularly in places such as refugee camps?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: We recognise the security challenges that are faced and will continue to be faced, not only by Israel and the Palestinian Authority in this case, but elsewhere in the world, where innocents living  in refugee camps are used as a cover for terrorists wishing to cause harm. We all have to continue to tackle that not only in the west bank, but around the world. Importantly, in this situation, we will all continue to urge de-escalation to reduce the risk of any further civilian casualties or loss of life.

Julie Elliott: This year has seen more Palestinians killed than in any other year, more settlement starts announced than in any other year, more demolitions in East Jerusalem than in any other year and more violence in general. We are on the precipice of another intifada. At the minute, it looks to me as though Israel is acting with impunity and this is an all-out assault on Palestinian life. So what actions will the Government undertake—not just conversations—to bring this dreadful escalation in violence to an end?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: We are absolutely committed to working with all parties on the challenges associated with demolitions so that people remain calm and avoid provocation. But we are clear that in all but the most exceptional of circumstances demolitions and forced evictions are contrary to international humanitarian law. The practice causes unnecessary suffering to Palestinians and is harmful to efforts to promote peace. In particular, we are monitoring developments at Masafer Yatta closely and we have made our views clear to the Israeli Government on that matter.

Joanna Cherry: Constituents have written to me about their grave concerns for the welfare of civilians and health workers in the Jenin camp. They, like me, know that the Israeli army enjoys a climate of impunity because the international community never holds Israel to account for its actions. Israel continues to breach international law, including the fourth Geneva convention. As we have heard already today, settlements are war crimes under the Rome statute. So my question for the Minister is: what specific actions will the Government take to ensure that Israel adheres to international law and that its leaders are held accountable for its war crimes?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I say, we have been clear on this. My colleague in the other place will speak with the Israeli ambassador later today to ensure that we put forward the UK view that de-escalation is urgently required in this difficult situation and that we continue to tackle the questions associated with illegal settlements, which are contrary to humanitarian law.

John Martin McDonnell: When the Russians have bombed predominantly civilian areas, resulting in the death of civilians, we have rightly condemned it as a war crime. Why have the Government not condemned these actions, which are resulting in the loss of civilian life, as a war crime? Have the Government called in the Israeli ambassador to remind her in the strongest terms possible of the legal responsibility that Israel has to protect civilians?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The UK supports Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens against terrorist activities, but we are clearly urging the IDF to demonstrate restraint  in order to prioritise the protection of civilians. As I say, Lord Ahmad will be speaking with the Israeli ambassador later today.

Philippa Whitford: We all condemn attacks on civilians, regardless of which community they are from. The actions of the IDF in Jenin are indefensible and have resulted in 2023 being one of the most lethal years for Palestinians. The UK has long claimed to support a two-state solution, endorsed UN Security Council resolution 2334 and recognised that settlements are illegal under international law. So after yesterday’s appalling move to block action by citizens and public bodies to stop illegal occupation and settlements, have UK Government policy changed?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I say, this Government will continue to stress the importance of the adherence to the principles of necessity and proportionality when Israel defends its legitimate security interests, as well as the importance of continuing to provide appropriate protection to the Palestinian civilian population, particularly children.

Andy McDonald: At around 11.30 am yesterday, 17-year-old Majdi Younis Saud Ararawi sustained a gunshot wound to the chest and Nouruddin Husam Yousef Marshoud, who was just 15, was shot in the head by Israeli occupation forces. Their names join a list of more than 30 Palestinian children killed by the Israeli regime since the beginning of 2023. The ultimate cause of those senseless killings is Israel’s brutal and illegal occupation of Palestine, which has gone on for over half a century.
Given that last night the Government voted for legislation banning peaceful means of protesting against this abomination, and given Britain’s humanitarian and historic responsibilities to the Palestinian people, what actions have the Government taken? The Minister has ducked the question so far, but I will give her another chance to answer. What action will the Government take to ensure that Israel adheres to international law and its leaders are held to account?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I have said, we are engaging both with the Israelis and the Palestinians to urge them to de-escalate those tensions. Lord Ahmad will be speaking to the Israeli ambassador later, highlighting and demanding that under international law access to medical care and staff is allowed, so that those who are injured in the Jenin refugee camp are able to receive the medical care that they require.

Andrew Slaughter: The use of aerial bombardment and armoured assault by thousands of troops in a refugee camp, familiar to the people of Gaza, is now extended to the west bank. Alongside settlement expansion, it is part of the annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories by Israel’s far-right Government. Occupation is the cause and context of these latest war crimes. Will the Government acknowledge that and respond by recognising the state of Palestine?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I say, across this House we continue our long-standing position of a two-state solution. We will continue to work with partners across the world to find a solution that allows that to happen. In the  meantime, we are deeply troubled by the level of violence and we continue to call on Israel, while defending itself and its citizens, to demonstrate the restraint required to ease the situation in Jenin today.

Liz Saville-Roberts: My thoughts go out to the people affected by the horrific attacks on the Jenin refugee camp. We must be clear that this is a violation of international law and that the occupying forces, in particular, have a responsibility to end the violence. I will give a clear suggestion of a possible action: will the UK Government send a clear message of condemnation by bringing to an end the importation into the UK of goods that are produced in those Israeli settlements that are deemed illegal under international law?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I say, we will continue to make calls on Israel—[Interruption.] Goods made in the settlements are not allowed to be imported, and that continues to be the case. We continue to grow the work that we do on trade with Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the OPTs, and I know the Department for Business and Trade is focused on that development work.[Official Report, 5 July 2023, Vol. 735, c. 4MC.]

Rachael Maskell: I do not think the Minister understands the power of office. Today we have heard comments and some warm words, but we have seen no action. The UK currently has the power of holding the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, so will she call the Security Council together to act now on the atrocities that we have seen in Jenin? What other measures will she take to stop further atrocities occurring?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I say, we continue to work on the peaceful two-state solution. Later today, Lord Ahmad will provide an update in the other place on our continuing activities.

Ruth Cadbury: This year has already been the deadliest for violence in the west bank since 2005. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of rising Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians? I will give her another chance: does she not agree that civilian deaths should lead to investigations and accountability?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I say, we continue to be deeply troubled by the high number of Palestinian civilians who have been killed and injured, as the hon. Lady highlights. While Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself, it is important that Israeli forces exercise maximum restraint, especially in the use of live fire, when protecting that legitimate security interest.

Anum Qaisar: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Peace is a word we often hear in relation to Israel and Palestine, but how can peace be achieved when Palestinians are subjected to systematic and deliberate oppression and discrimination by Israeli authorities? The people in the Jenin refugee camp have already fled their homes, and they have been displaced yet again. Can the Minister set out what is being done by the international community to help those who have now been displaced twice? Will  she condemn the denial to access medical care for Palestinians in Jenin? And will she join me in calling out Israel’s behaviour for what it is? As stated in a report by Amnesty International, Israel is committing the crime of “apartheid against Palestinians.”

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I say, Lord Ahmad will be speaking to the Israeli ambassador later and will be making clear that we want to ensure that medical supplies are able to get into refugee camps to provide the care that is needed to those who are injured as a result of the violence of the past few days.

Seema Malhotra: Reports from Jenin are shocking, particularly reports that medical teams are unable to get access to civilians in need. I support what the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), said about having steps towards a solution and an ending of Israeli settlements. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports there have been at least 570 attacks by settlers against Palestinians in the west bank this year, which is an average of three attacks a day. What is the Minister doing, in discussions with her counterparts, on tackling Israeli settler violence, as well as on the issues faced because of new Palestinian militant groups? Action is needed now to de-escalate the situation, as well as looking again at the international funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which is vital to support Palestinian refugees.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I say, we condemn settler violence in the strongest possible terms and we urge the Israeli authorities to do what they can. The Foreign Secretary’s statement, published with Australia and Canada at the end of last week, highlighted the very clear demand that the Government of Israel reverse their decision to approve over 5,700 new settlement units in the west bank and change the settlement approval process. We will continue to work with allies to achieve that.

Mohammad Yasin: The escalation of violence in the west bank over the past year and the killing of innocent civilians, including children in recent days, is devastating. The two-state solution, which many of us hope will bring peace and stability to the region, seems further away than ever. What are the Government actively doing to stop the killing of innocent people and to ensure that a two-state settlement is still a diplomatic reality?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I have said, we continue to work with partners and allies on the two-state solution. Indeed, we call on all those caught up in the violence today to show restraint and to de-escalate the situation so that the violence can come to a halt and we can ensure that those casualties are able to receive treatment.

Grahame Morris: My good and hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) was absolutely correct in her remarks and I thank her for securing this urgent question. I visited the refugee camp at Jenin in 2012 and saw some of the clinics and schools; to say that the conditions were grim is an understatement. What we have seen over the past day or two is an attack by Israeli security forces on a refugee camp, using missiles against children, parents, the elderly  and the vulnerable. This is not about Israel defending itself. Even the White House has stated that it is tyranny. When will the UK Government intervene not just with words to condemn those actions, but with something in practical terms to support the Palestinian people undergoing such appalling oppression?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The UK’s position on the middle east peace process is clear and we will continue to support a negotiated settlement, which leads to a safe and secure Israel living side by side with a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders. In the short term, we are calling very firmly, as are all partners around the world, on Israeli defence forces to show the required level of restraint to ensure that the violence ceases in Jenin refugee camp as soon as possible.

Mary Foy: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for securing this urgent question. It has been reported that medical teams have been prevented from entering Jenin. Will the Minister condemn that now from the Dispatch Box? Will she express to her counterpart that Palestinians must have medical aid, and can she then return to the House to update MPs on the medical situation?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I have said, international humanitarian law requires access to be made available for medical teams to treat those in need of care, so we are urging Israel to allow that as soon as possible. I know that my colleague, the Minister for the middle east, will be raising that particularly urgently with the Israeli ambassador when he speaks to her this afternoon. I will ensure that an update is provided by the Department in due course.

Christian Wakeford: The last time that we saw tensions rise like this, we experienced a month of hate, with incidents of antisemitism rising to an all-time high, and horror tropes on the streets of London. Does the Minister agree that, while discussions are taking place to de-escalate the situation, we all have a duty to temper our language to make sure that Jewish residents, such as my constituents, do not live in fear of abuse, graffiti, racist convoys and, ultimately, violence. We all have a duty to try to tackle this behaviour on the streets when we see it.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: We all have a duty to ensure that antisemitic voices are not allowed to cause distress or violence. We will continue to ensure that those who feel anxious get the support they need. We provide a great deal of support and are very proud of the work that the Home Office does in support of many of our Jewish communities.

Alan Brown: This year, we have seen a record number of settlement units approved. The Israeli Finance Minister has instructed ministries to prepare for an additional 500,000 settlers on the west bank. We have seen 33 Palestinian children killed. While the Government urge restraint and we get the same weak answers time and again from the Dispatch Box, Israel is acting with impunity. I think the Minister said it slightly wrong earlier on, but it seemed that she was saying that trade with illegal settlements is now deemed illegal by the UK Government. Is that the case?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Let me reiterate again that the UK position on settlements is absolutely clear. Those settlements are illegal under international law and, indeed, they call into question that commitment to the two-state solution, to which the UK are committed. We will continue to urge Israel to halt that and ensure that the trade relationships that we have with Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories can progress as they need to.

Rachel Hopkins: Many of my Luton South constituents have been in touch to say how distressed and angry they are about the increase in violence on the west bank. Many have set out that the access to supplies, clean water and powdered milk for children is at risk, so, beyond conversations, can the Minister confirm that there will be additional support for healthcare and medical organisations on the ground so that they can help civilians?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Once my noble Friend Lord Ahmad has had discussions with the Israeli ambassador, I will ensure that further information on how we will continue to support UNRWA and other humanitarian groups focuses in particular on this incident. I am afraid that I do not have more information to hand at the moment.

Jonathan Edwards: One eye witness in an interview with CNN has compared the impact of the incursion with a natural disaster in terms of the destruction of infrastructure, such as roads, water systems and electricity. What role can the British Government play in helping reconstruction to reduce further humanitarian suffering? Is it the policy of the British Government that the state of Israel should pay reparations for damage to civilian infrastructure in the occupied territories as a result of military activity?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I have said, we have seen the violent activity today on our TVs and we call on the Israeli Defence Forces and the Israeli Government to demonstrate the restraint that is required to prioritise the protection of civilians and ensure that we can see both medical support get into the Jenin camp and de-escalation of the violence as soon as possible.

Ian Byrne: I wish to pass on my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) for raising this issue today. I will give the Minister one more chance before we end this urgent question: can she set out with far, far greater clarity than she has done so far what action the Government will take as president of the UN Security Council to ensure that Israel adheres to international law and that its leaders are held accountable?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I set out earlier this week, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Eli Cohen, on 26 June and to Palestinian Prime Minister Shtayyeh on 16 June. Such conversations are going on day after day. Lord Ahmad will be able to give an update on his conversations later on in the day in the other place.

Stephen Farry: Israel is clearly in breach of international humanitarian law as well as multiple UN Security Council resolutions. The Minister has ducked the very specific question on the  Security Council on multiple occasions. As president of the Security Council, the UK has a particular power to convene the Security Council and, indeed, the responsibility to do so. Can the Minister give us a very clearcut answer: will the UK Government convene the Security Council on this issue—yes or no?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: As I have said, the Government continue not only to have close discussions with the Israelis to try to ensure a de-escalation of the violence that we are seeing today, but to work closely with our allies and partners to ensure that we continue to support and give the clear direction of international partners on the question of the two-state solution.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister of State for her measured and careful answers to the urgent question. It is important that her interest in this matter is put on the record. Will she outline what discussions have taken place with our Israeli allies to renew peace talks, to allow both states to co-exist beside each other without the tit-for-tat action that has become normalised and yet is truly horrific and heartbreaking for all those who are losing loved ones in this conflict?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is right that, when this violence occurs, the great tragedy is that civilians are caught up in it, especially where the Israeli Defence Forces are legitimately trying to defend themselves and, indeed, Palestinians from the terrorist threat. The Foreign Secretary continues to have a strong focus on this and we are working with leaders and our allies around the world to try to find a solution.

Kim Johnson: The Minister mentioned that the Government have urged the Israeli Defence Forces to demonstrate restraint and have urged de-escalation to protect civilians, but actions speak  louder than words. Can the Minister say what it will take for the Government to suspend arms sales to Israel until we can be sure that they are not being used to violate international law and perpetrate war crimes and human rights abuses? I would appreciate it if the Minister could give a well-thought-out answer to the question, instead of referring to pre-scripted notes in a folder.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I will continue to state the fact that these violent activities are ongoing and colleagues are in discussions right now with Israeli counterparts. I do not wish to disturb those discussions in any way. I am here to update the House on as much as we know. It is an ongoing situation, but I know that when my colleague Lord Ahmad responds to an urgent question later in the day, he will have more information to share in the other place.

Richard Burgon: I have listened carefully to the Minister, but since 2015 the Government have sold £500 million-worth of arms to Israel, and UK arms have been implicated in previous atrocities against Palestine. Can the Minister say categorically whether any of that military equipment has been used in Israel’s assaults on the Jenin refugee camp? Does not this attack again show why the Government should suspend all arms sales to Israel until it abides by international law?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The Government take our defence export responsibilities seriously and we operate some of the most robust export controls in the world. I reiterate, as colleagues have heard me say before in previous roles, that all applications for export licences are assessed on a case-by-case basis against strict criteria and we will not issue a licence if there is a clear risk that equipment might be used for internal repression. The Government will continue to monitor closely the situation in Israel, Gaza and the west bank and, if extant licences are found to be no longer consistent with those criteria, those licences will be revoked.

Points of Order

Dawn Butler: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My dad, God rest his soul, said to me that there are not many levers to tackle injustices, but boycotting is one of them. That is why I could not vote for the Government’s Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill yesterday, which Ministers and lawyers have said would likely place the United Kingdom in breach of international law obligations. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns)—I have informed her that I will be mentioning her—said in an intervention on the Minister:
“The Foreign Office’s own legal advice states that the Bill could breach UNSC 2334. How am I being told repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that that is not the case, when that is what Government lawyers are saying themselves?”
She said,
“please do not repeat that this does not change anything when the Government lawyers themselves say it does.”—[Official Report, 3 July 2023; Vol. 735, c. 656.]
Conservative Members seem to have been informed that the Bill could breach international law, while Government Ministers state the opposite. I am minded to believe the hon. Lady, but could you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what I can do to ensure that the Government place all their legal advice in the Library, so that we can all have a read and discover who is telling the truth?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. No, the Chair does not have the power—nor has   it ever in the whole of our constitutional development—to require the Government to place any document in the Library, and certainly not legal advice. The hon. Lady, who is well versed in these matters, has rightly used the opportunity of a point of order to put her opinion on the record, and I am sure that it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. As I say, she is well versed in these matters, and she will know it has been the long-standing practice of Governments of every political persuasion not to publish their legal advice. That is the normal course, and I certainly have no power from the Chair to compel the Government to do otherwise.

Catherine West: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week in Justice questions, the Justice Secretary conflated the conviction rate and the charging rate for sex offenders and alleged rapists in the UK. Every day 300 women will be raped, and only three of those rapes will end in a charge. What can the House do to emphasise to Ministers that conflating the conviction rate with the charging rate in the courts is a basic error? The Secretary of State should know better and not repeat the sloppy practice of mixing up the two, especially on the very sensitive question of rape convictions.

Eleanor Laing: As Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers have said many times from this Chair, the interpretation of statistics is not a matter for the Chair. One person looks at statistics and comes to one conclusion, while someone else looks at those statistics and comes to a different conclusion. The hon. Lady has made her point well and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard it.

Republic of Somaliland (Recognition)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Gavin Williamson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require His Majesty’s Government to recognise formally the Republic of Somaliland; to make provision in connection with the establishing of diplomatic relations with the Republic of Somaliland; and for connected purposes.
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The fourth of July is often known as independence day for a particular country, but I am not here to talk about the United States—I am here to talk about the republic of Somaliland. On 26 June 1960, Britain granted independence to the British protectorate of Somaliland. It was in the euphoria of that moment that Somaliland a few days later entered into a union with the old Italian trust territory of Somaliland, a union that proved deeply unhappy.
While it started in hope and optimism, that union ended in tragedy. It saw the rise of a brutal military dictatorship based in Mogadishu, whose next steps were the persecution and genocide of many Somalilanders. Over the following years, that union saw a genocide unfold with the loss of many lives—I am talking about not just tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of lives. In the capital city of Somaliland, it saw Somali air force jets rising to the skies to drop bombs on the people of Hargeisa. Some 90% of the city was completely destroyed, and there was destruction in many other cities right across Somaliland.
That union also saw many of the nomadic tribes of Somaliland persecuted, with their wells—their only source of life, which provided them vital water—being poisoned. Hundreds of thousands of people died in that genocide and, sadly, much of the world did not notice or pay attention. The impact was not just on the people killed; every single family in Somaliland was touched by that violence and many families either were displaced within the borders of Somaliland or had to flee to neighbouring countries such as Ethiopia and Djibouti.
We in this country should take pride in the fact that we welcomed so many of those Somalilanders to our shores and that they made us their home, as so many Somalilanders had done in the past. It is that connection—a connection that goes back long before independence—that ties our two nations together.
Out of that genocide, out of that civil war, we saw the emergence once again of an independent country. In 1991, Somaliland was able to declare itself free of Somalia. It was able to stand proud and independent, away from the persecution and genocide that it had suffered for so long. Somalilanders have asked the world for recognition for more than 30 years now. They have asked the world to recognise what is there on the horn of Africa. They have listened to countries such as Britain, the United States, France and Germany, which have turned to them and said, “We expect certain things: a democratic process, parliamentary and presidential elections, and a judicial process. We expect you to educate your boys and girls. We expect you to be welcoming and a safe place for people to visit.” And Somaliland  has delivered that, yet it still waits for recognition from countries such as Britain, the United States, France, Germany and so many others. That wait is too long.
Somaliland is a country doing everything that it believes people expect a democratic free country to be doing, but it asks for something in return. The people of Somaliland have, over so many decades, been willing to look to Britain as a friend. In fact, when we were in our greatest need during the second world war, the people of Somaliland joined with us in our battle against fascism. They fought side by side with British soldiers. When I was in Hargeisa, I visited the Commonwealth war graves cemetery, where I saw British names and the names of Somalilanders. Blood was spilled by both our nations for those common values and interests. We now need to step up as a nation and do something more than just being there. It is time to recognise Somaliland.
For too long, we have resisted that. We always find excuses for inertia and inaction. Now is the time for  us to start being brave and reward the people who  are doing the things that we as a nation ask them  to do. Somaliland does not live in the easiest of neighbourhoods—it has difficult neighbours—but it is a democratic country that wants to educate its boys and girls and has a fair and robust judicial system. Those are things that we need to reward. We need to put them on a pedestal and say, “This is an example that we want others to follow.”
I say that if the Government will not take the action that is required, let it be the British House of Commons that leads the way. If the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is deaf, let us show the will to recognise what is a nation: a country that has its own judicial process, elections, and every other function that we want in a democratic nation. If the Government are reluctant to take action, let this House do it. Let us ensure that we reward those who are doing what is needed.
As we look at Somaliland, we see a country that is developing and that has investment coming into it. I thank the British Government for the investment in Berbera port and the highway north to Hargeisa, but by the simple act of recognition, we could transform the lives of 5.7 million people, making every single one of them more prosperous and enabling Somaliland—a good ally of this country—to play a bigger role on the world stage and a vital role in supporting the values that we in this House hold dear.
Somaliland may seem a far-off place, and I recognise that a nation of 5.7 million perhaps does not seem significant to Britain, but it is. It plays a pivotal role in Africa. I urge this House to take the action that is required to support the republic of Somaliland and ensure that we deliver for its people, as they have defended what we value so dearly: democracy and freedom.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Gavin Williamson, Mr Clive Betts, Sir Robert Buckland, Dr Lisa Cameron, Alun Cairns, John Spellar, Ian Paisley, Alec Shelbrooke, Paul Blomfield, Alexander Stafford and Kim Johnson present the Bill.
Sir Gavin Williamson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 341).

Estimates Day

[4th Allotted Day]

Department for Work and Pensions

[Relevant documents: Fourth Report of the Work and Pensions Committee, Universal Credit and childcare costs, HC 127; Second Report of the Work and Pensions Committee, The Cost of Living, HC 129; Fourth Report of the Work and Pensions Committee of Session 2019-21, The temporary increase in Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit, HC 1193; and Third Report of the Work and Pensions Committee of Session 2019-21, Universal Credit: the wait for a first payment, HC 204.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2024, for expenditure by the Department for Work and Pensions:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £88,727,809,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1383 of Session 2022–23,
(2) further resources, not exceeding £571,264,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £89,293,628,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Guy Opperman.)

Eleanor Laing: I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee to open the debate.

Stephen Timms: I am very grateful to have been granted today’s debate about DWP spending.
I will focus in particular on universal credit, whose roll-out started 10 years ago in 2013. The DWP is forecast to have, by some considerable margin, the highest expenditure of any Government Department, at £279.3 billion in this financial year, followed by the Department of Health and Social Care, at £201 billion. DWP spending is the largest by a considerable distance.
Of course, the DWP forecast is uncertain. Almost all its funding counts as annually managed expenditure; it is hard to forecast demand-led spending. DWP’s admin spending—departmental expenditure limits—is 27% lower in real terms this year than in 2010-11. Universal credit spending is forecast to be £50.8 billion this financial year, which is £8.8 billion higher than forecast in these estimates last year, reflecting the recent much-needed uprating and a higher case load. In February, 4.5 million households were receiving universal credit payments.
A key argument in the business case for universal credit was the prospect of reducing fraud and error. Nearly a quarter of the £34 billion net present value gain expected over 10 years from introducing universal credit was due to come from lower fraud and error. In fact, fraud and error have been much worse than they were for legacy benefits. The Department’s statistics show that the universal credit overpayment rate decreased, but from an astronomical 14.7% in May 2021 to 12.8% last year. I know that the Department is setting out to address that problem, and that it has obtained resources from the Treasury to do so. Underpayments were at  their highest-ever recorded rate last year, at 1.6%. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us about plans for tackling those problems.
An additional reason that it is so important to get decisions right at the moment is that universal credit is a passport to cost of living support payments. There was a strong case for merging the various benefits into universal credit, and the success of the system in getting urgently needed support out effectively during the pandemic was very important and very impressive. However, there are some big problems—above all, the problem of the five-week wait between applying for the benefit and receiving the first payment. With legacy benefits, the first payment would usually arrive a week and a half or so after applying. With universal credit, having spent hundreds of millions of pounds on what we were always assured was agile technology, the same thing now takes five weeks. That is a fundamental and unnecessary flaw; the security is absent from social security.
In January 2021, the Government rejected the Select Committee’s recommendations to eliminate the wait and instead pay all first-time claimants of universal credit a starter payment equivalent to three weeks of the standard allowance, just to tide people over. The Government response pointed out that claimants can access advances, but of course, those are loans. Repayments reduce the already low monthly awards, and repaying advances is a major driver of the explosive growth in food bank demand that we have seen. Our colleagues in the other place, those on the Lords Economic Affairs Committee—with its Conservative Chair—succinctly highlighted the consequences of the five-week wait in July last year:
“the five-week wait for the first payment…drives many people into rent arrears, reliance on foodbanks and debt.”
As such, I ask the Minister once again whether the Government will reconsider our recommendations, or whether we have to wait for a different Government for that fundamental flaw to be addressed.
I am very pleased to say that one area in which the Government have listened to the Committee is reimbursement of childcare costs for people claiming universal credit. I warmly welcome the lifting of the cap and up-front payments for childcare announced in the Budget, and I hope that our future reports will have comparable levels of success. Those changes will support people to be in work in future.
Last week, the Child Poverty Action Group published a fascinating report called “You reap what you code”, highlighting areas where the universal credit computer system does not deliver what it should. It gave the example that legislation and guidance allow some groups to submit a universal credit claim up to a month in advance, but the system does not allow that, nor is there an adequate workaround outside the digital system. As such, some care leavers and prisoners expecting release can miss out on an entitlement that they are due. For all its success in the pandemic—I am unstinting in my recognition of that success—the rigidity of the digital system is a problem. Can the Minister tell us whether a fix is planned for that problem of early claims, which the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted last week?
Does the level of benefits meet need in the way it is supposed to? Do benefits represent value for the taxpayer? The Committee is conducting an important inquiry  into benefit levels in the UK, and will report in the first half of next year. Benefit levels are very low. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust told the Committee that
“the basic rate of Universal Credit—its standard allowance (or equivalents in previous systems)—is now at its lowest level in real terms in almost 40 years (CPI-adjusted) and its lowest ever level as a proportion of average earnings.”
They estimate from pretty careful research that a single adult needs £120 per week to cover essentials: food, utilities, vital household items and travel. That is excluding rent and council tax. Universal credit’s standard allowance is £85 per week for a single adult over 25. That is a shortfall of at least £35 per week, and deductions—for advance payments, for example—often pull actual support well below the headline rate.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust call for an essentials guarantee. They make the point—which has been suggested this week in the press—that we might get a below-inflation uprating of benefits next year, making those problems even worse. I would be grateful if the Minister gave an assurance on that front, because that would be very bad news indeed.

David Linden: Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that the Government need to resist the temptation to try to plug the gaps with one-off payments? They should actually look at the wider, more structural problems that they have with the social security system, rather than just try to plug gaps when the system is falling apart at the seams.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I very much value his contribution to the work of the Select Committee. He is quite right, and I hope that we will be able to look at some of those structural issues over the course of the inquiry.
If universal credit did meet basic needs, other demands—including on food banks—would decrease. When the £20 a week uplift to universal credit was introduced, there was a significant drop in food bank use; when that uplift was removed, food bank use went straight back up again. Universal credit was intended to make work pay, but how can it achieve that aim if people do not have the means to pay a bus fare, for example? In evidence to the Committee, the Trussell Trust, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Public Law Project all highlighted not being able to buy public transport tickets as a significant barrier to work. As far as we can tell, the Government have made no assessment at all of whether benefit levels are adequate. If I am wrong about that, I would very much welcome the Minister telling us, but there is certainly no evidence of such an assessment ever having been made. I hope the Department will look very carefully at the findings of our report when they are published in due course.
One other point was highlighted in a briefing for this debate prepared by the charity Barnardo’s. That charity describes the two-child limit as the single biggest policy driver of child poverty in the UK, and says that ending it would be the most cost-effective way of reducing child poverty, lifting a quarter of a million children out of poverty and easing the poverty of a further 850,000 children. The cost of doing so would be £1.3 billion per year. I must say that I am puzzled about the justification  for the two-child limit: it presumably reflects a belief that parents should not have more than two children, but as far as I understand it, that is not the Government’s view. Indeed, Government Members are understandably starting to worry about our falling birth rate, so why do we refuse to provide support for children beyond the first two? Is it not time to just scrap that limit, which does not seem to make any sense?
Another reason for higher DWP expenditure this year is the continuation of cost of living support. Expenditure is forecast to increase by just over £2 billion this year, due to higher payments—£900 in this financial year, compared with £650 last year—and higher take-up. Those payments have been crucial, but they do not fully meet need, particularly the £150 disability support payment. Last month, Maddy Rose of Mencap told the Select Committee that the payment is “clearly not commensurate” with the extra costs that those eligible incur, and we have heard other strong evidence to the Committee along those lines. Helen Barnard of the Trussell Trust told us last month that the cost of living payment
“has certainly helped the families that have got it, but of course, it is a flat payment. It is not calibrated for the number of people you are trying to feed, so it has clearly gone less far if you are a family with children than if you are a single person or a couple.”
That is one of the reasons why the Trussell Trust data shows a faster rise in food bank demand among families with children than among families without.
The lump sum nature of the payment is problematic. Citizens Advice, speaking for many, told the Committee that increments to universal credit would be better than one-off payments. Our colleagues on the Treasury Committee called on the Government last December to provide monthly payments over a six-month period to give more households support at the time of their greatest need and reduce the severity of the disincentives to work. The Government rejected that proposal, essentially due to the limitations of the IT system, but as we know from the pandemic, monthly universal credit can be increased overnight.
The need to meet a specific qualifying period for each payment window has led to what evidence to the Committee has described as
“a cliff edge where receiving a nil UC award one month—maybe due to a sanction or a higher salary due to backpay or a bonus—caused recipients to become ineligible for the entire cost of living support payment in that qualification period.”
I am looking forward to discussing cost of living support further with the Minister responsible for social mobility, youth and progression—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies)—at the Committee tomorrow morning.
A very important aim in achieving effective spending is transparency over how the money is being spent and what is being achieved. The Department has had a very poor record in recent years, so I warmly welcome signs of a new commitment to transparency since the appointment of the new Secretary of State. Keeping things hidden, which has been the Department’s practice, has the short-term advantage for Ministers of avoiding having to answer sometimes awkward questions, but over the medium and long term, people depending on the Department form the impression that it is conspiring against them. The result is terrible mistrust, causing the Department very serious problems over time—for example,  the very serious lack of confidence in the DWP among disabled people at the moment. It does not have to be like that, but changing things requires deliberate effort on the Department’s behalf.
None of the recently introduced employment support initiatives had regular performance reporting on introduction. I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement of six-monthly performance reports for the restart scheme. That is one of the signs of welcome change in the Department’s approach, but it should be the norm and part of the arrangements built in at the outset, not something that has to be dragged from the Department kicking and screaming subsequently. Greater openness could deliver a wholly different relationship between the Department and the people depending on its services, with the Department seen to be working with those it serves, rather than conspiring against them.
An interesting suggestion in the Child Poverty Action Group report I mentioned earlier, “You reap what you code”, is that the source code for the universal credit computer system should be published. There would no doubt be some security concerns about doing that, but could not a small team—with experts from disability groups, Citizens Advice and software experts—be charged with reviewing that software and proposing improvements, perhaps in an annual report, a little bit along the lines of what the Social Security Advisory Committee does at the moment?
Let me briefly say a word about a different aspect of the Committee’s work. We have been worried by the cuts to the funding of the Health and Safety Executive, and one result has been drastically fewer inspections of workplace asbestos. We published a report on this last year, and called in particular for two things—a target to remove all workplace asbestos within 40 years together with a plan to deliver it, and a central digital register of all workplace asbestos and of its condition. The Government rejected those recommendations, although I do welcome the agreement of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex, to meet a group of us, together with three industry groups and the Health and Safety Executive, to discuss further the idea for a register. That meeting will take place later this month.
I very warmly welcome the launch of the campaign by The Sunday Times at the weekend drawing attention to the continuing scale of the tragedy being inflicted by asbestos even now, a quarter of a century after its use was banned. It is still the biggest source of workplace-related deaths. The Sunday Times campaign headlines in particular our two recommendations, and I do hope that Ministers will now recognise the need to act. I welcome the fact that The Sunday Times will be running this campaign on a consistent basis.
I again thank the Backbench Business Committee for recommending today’s debate. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister specifically how Ministers are assessing whether the different cost of living support payments meet needs and whether they are reaching the right people, and also how and when Ministers will decide whether payments along these lines will be needed next year. I look forward to the debate we are about to have.

Wendy Chamberlain: It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). This is an opportunity for us to scrutinise the spending of the DWP as a whole, and I think it is important to reflect, as the Chair did, on the amounts of money that we are talking about. Spending on pensioner benefits equates to £134.8 billion and spending on universal credit and equivalent benefits equates to £82.8 billion, and that is before we look at disability and carer benefits, housing benefit, incapacity benefits and the one-off cost of living payments.
We are talking about a significant amount of money, but we are not just talking about it in the whole or in the round. I am sure that all of us here, as constituency MPs, know that casework associated with the DWP takes up a significant proportion of our casework teams’ time. Frankly, that is usually because of errors in the system. We know that every constituent’s circumstances are unique, but the themes are the same and the consequences for people’s day-to-day lives and living circumstances can be significant. I will highlight a survey carried out by the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—campaign that reports that nearly one in three women who have been impacted by changes to the state pension have fallen into debt in the last six months. That is people’s day-to-day lives. Given the amount of money spent on the DWP, I think we all, on a cross-party basis, would want the money that is spent to be used effectively and efficiently. I want to use my time this afternoon to highlight some of the inefficiencies in the system and seek updates from the Minister on points that I hope he will address in his concluding remarks.
On the state pension, it is important that we recognise that those who are most reliant on the state pension are those who are least able to work for longer. I want to highlight the current LEAP—legal entitlement and administrative practices—correction exercise for underpayments of the state pension, and to ask the Minister to confirm whether the Government are still on track to complete those corrections by the end of 2024. In February 2023, they had paid out only £200 million of the target of £1.5 billion.
I also want to highlight the uptake of pension credit. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has advised that there is a policy proposal on the table looking at combining the housing allowance and pension credit systems. It believes that that would increase uptake of pension credit, which I know the Pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott)—has been working very hard to do. If that is the case, why is it potentially being pushed back to 2028?
Home responsibilities protection errors were discovered last year and mentioned in the DWP’s annual report. When people had accrued HRP under the old state pension, there were errors in converting it to national insurance credits in the move to the new system, and that left people with incomplete records and underpayments. When I say people, it is generally women. We are still waiting for the report to set out the scale of the problem now and how the DWP plans to fix it. I would be grateful if the Minister mentioned when that correction exercise will start. I urge that it starts in parallel with the current correction exercise rather than being delayed  until after the current exercise is finished. Again, a lot of these issues tend to be for women. It feels to me that the way systems are set up sometimes means that they do not recognise the situation of women who have been in the workplace, the decisions they make for family and other reasons, and their caring responsibilities.
I want to mention the missing national insurance credits for people who received universal credit. The Minister confirmed to me in a letter in March that the automatic system for updating the records did not work because the format of the UC data sent to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs did not work with its systems, so that was suspended. This has meant that NI records are being manually updated, with errors being made as a result. I think this ties in with the Chair of the Select Committee’s comments about IT and the problems that legacy systems sometimes have. We all remember that the £20 uplift in universal credit was never seen by those on legacy benefits, and the initial reason given for that was that the IT systems could not cope, and that was never addressed. Does the Minister think that all those corrections to NI records will be made by the end of 2023-24, and may we have an update on the number of pensioners who are still missing out on their full entitlement?
If we want work to work, and to work effectively, we must acknowledge that we need to do more on pensions. For me, a startling statistic is the fact that most people are not in work a year before their pension age. For a variety of reasons people are not working, and they are therefore waiting for their state pension. Recent DWP reporting puts the gender pension gap for private pensions at a staggering 35%. Do the Government have an estimate of the gender pay gap if they include people who have no private pension entitlement at all? I suspect that if they have not been included, the gap will be somewhat larger. Will the Government make it a departmental statutory objective to close the gender pension gap?
That brings us back to women, because that changing portfolio of careers that women potentially experience will increasingly be the case for many people. I think about my own background before I came to this place. Increasingly, people do not stay in one organisation for 30-plus years and then draw down their pension from that organisation; they instead do a variety of different jobs in different places. As a result, the pension dashboard that was introduced by the Pension Schemes Act 2021 becomes even more critical so that people can keep track. Again, I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on that roll-out.
Let me return to benefits and the insufficiency of income. A number of us were present at the statement on the disability cost of living payment, and there was a general acknowledgement, certainly on this side of the House, that insufficiency of income is at the root of that. DWP data shows that in 2021 one in six people were in relative poverty, and one in five after accounting for housing costs, while 13% were in absolute poverty and 17% after housing costs. The Resolution Foundation estimates that that figure will rise in 2023-24 to 18.4% after housing costs.
Keeping people in poverty has negative outcomes. When people are financially insecure, they are more likely to have health or mental health problems, and more likely to struggle to get into work—it becomes a  self-fulfilling prophecy. I echo the comments of the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee on the uprating of benefits. The previous uprating, which was welcomed, was simply to keep up with inflation. If the problem is insufficiency of income, not committing to do that going forward just makes the problem worse.
I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks, and our “Cash or food?” inquiry deals specifically with how we better support people and ensure a decrease in the use of food banks. In my constituency—indeed, this is something the Scottish Affairs Committee is looking at—the rural poverty premium is real. The Chair of the Committee mentioned transport costs, and going from East Neuk in my constituency to the jobcentre in Levan costs £9 on the bus. When talking about the small amounts of money that constitute universal credit, we can quickly see where that money goes, and that is before someone potentially has to go shopping in premium local shops as opposed to Aldi and Lidl. Money goes very quickly.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Lady made a good point about benefits and the key role that they play in creating a wealthy society. She may or may not know that there is an interesting TED talk called “Where in the world is it easiest to get rich?” The answer is: in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, where they have identified that one of the key aspects of creating a wealthy society is a good benefits system that enables workers to go around with some security, and society and children to have security as well. If we want to have millionaires and billionaires, we need a very good benefits system.

Wendy Chamberlain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. Absolutely; I think we all look to the Scandinavian countries to see how they promote quality of life and support individuals, and we must think about how we can better support that. Indeed, the public generally tend to support that. They are comfortable potentially paying more in tax to have better services, and that debate must continue to be had.
I am pleased that my carer’s leave private Member’s Bill is now the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, and it will for the first time give employment rights to unpaid carers. One of the huge challenges when I was engaging with unpaid carers in my constituency—I have said this in the Chamber before—was the number of people who had left work because of their caring responsibilities, and therefore they would not benefit from provisions in the Act. Sadly, it is a fact that too many unpaid carers and the people they care for are living in poverty.
Carers UK estimates that unpaid carers are providing care worth £162 billion a year, and when we contrast that with the costs of the Department through the estimates debate, we can see the comparators. Without unpaid carers, our economy would be severely strained. Some 45% of unpaid carers are estimated to be unable to afford their monthly expenses, and two thirds of those who receive carer’s allowance or the universal credit carer element say that they cannot meet their monthly expenses. The level of carer’s allowance needs to be increased urgently—I have called for that before, and I will continue to do so.
We must also think about how we taper carer’s allowance. Caring never stops, and we should not have people falling off a cliff edge in relation to hours worked.  Frankly, that is a disincentive for people going into work, because if they have the choice between working or caring for their loved one, they will choose their loved one every time. For young carers, I am not just concerned about their education; I am also concerned that we will never get them into the workplace if we do not provide them with the support to get there.
I am conscious that some unpaid carers decide to step out of the workplace for some time and then their caring responsibilities end, potentially through the loss of a loved one. What are we doing to support unpaid carers, who might have been out of the workplace for some time, to get back into work? There are similarities with issues such as parental leave and other decisions, and we should be looking at that body of people, who frankly are some of the best multitaskers I know, given their skillsets, and how we can help them into work.
Finally—this is an issue that other Members will be hugely aware of—child benefit thresholds are becoming an increasing problem, particularly given some of our frozen levels of income tax. It is a ticking timebomb. Families do not apply for child benefit if they know that they will not be entitled to it, but because those levels have never changed, that is increasingly an issue for stay-at-home parents—again, those are usually women; there’s a theme—who then miss out on accruing national insurance credits for the state pension. They do not realise that if they do not apply for child benefit payment, even to be told that they do not apply, they cannot pick up the national insurance credits, and that can be a real issue. Will the Minister consider reviewing the scheme for accruing credits for stay-at-home parents, or at the very least doing an awareness-raising campaign, as has been done for pension credits and other things? This is a good opportunity, whether a Member has an interest via the Committee, or otherwise, but as a constituency MP I want, and my casework team want, the DWP to be working as effectively as possible, so that those who need help get it, and those who can get into work are supported to do so.

Debbie Abrahams: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). I find myself resonating with her comments on carers and the lack of support that exists in so many different ways, but particularly through the social security system, and the billions—multiple billions—that are provided in equivalent support to this country that we sadly do not adequately recognise.
I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), for all that he does in the plethora of different inquiries that the Committee has held over the past few years. I am particularly pleased about the work that we are doing on the adequacy, or inadequacy, of the social security system, and the important things that will reveal when it is published early next year.
This debate is about DWP spending. Associated with that is what it means for the priorities of the Department and, in particular, the Government’s priorities for social security as a whole. I will focus my remarks on the fall in support for working-age adults. We need to recognise that particular group and the impact that fall is having on so many different families across the country.
We have had two major welfare reform Acts, in 2012 and 2016. I will refer to the latter in a moment, but the cumulative impact of those up to the pandemic was the equivalent of a 17% reduction in working-age support, which in cash terms is about £33 billion. That was only slightly offset by the temporary increase in universal credit during the pandemic. Although I welcome the uprating last year, and I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham said about that, it does not at all make up for the last 10 or 11 years of significant cuts. That has had an impact on relative poverty across the UK.
Just under one in three children in the UK are growing up in poverty, and in my constituency the figure is nearly one in two. We also know that just under two thirds of children growing up in poverty live in families where at least one adult is working. The implications of these cuts for those children are not insignificant. We now have the highest ever level of in-work poverty. What on earth does that say about this country? It is shocking.
Many people who know me will know how strongly I feel about the impact of these cuts on disabled people. One in three disabled people are living in poverty, which is twice the rate for non-disabled people. It is totally unacceptable. These are the most vulnerable people in our society, and we are failing to recognise their needs and support them.
I know that the Minister will come back and say, “Actually, poverty has reduced.” The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reflected that in its annual report, which came out at the beginning of the year. Yes, poverty levels have gone down, but that reflected the fact that during the pandemic we saw reductions in overall incomes, and with relative poverty that is the position. Importantly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that it was also about different choices that the Government made at the time. As much as we are talking about now, we must recognise that that £20 a week of additional support made a difference to those poverty levels. Poverty is not inevitable; it is about political choices. Again, I hope we can reflect on that.
When I speak to my constituents in Oldham East and Saddleworth, and indeed people across the country, they tell me that they feel our current system no longer provides the safety net that it was set up to provide in the post-war settlement with the British people, and they are right; it is inadequate. Following on from their first-hand experience during the pandemic, polling shows that two thirds of Britons think that universal credit is too low.
Not only has the adequacy of the UK’s social security system diminished over time—in terms of average weekly incomes, it is approximately half of what was provided after world war two—but it is also lower than most of our European neighbours, with data from 2018 showing that our social security spending as a percentage of GDP was below EU27 and OECD averages.
We must never forget that the post-war Labour Government created the NHS and the welfare state. As we mark the remarkable achievement of our NHS with its 75th anniversary tomorrow, we must reflect on the principles of universality and access for all, which I would like to see reflected in our social security system, too. Like our NHS, our social security system should be there for all of us in our time of need, whether that is a  result of illness or disability, of being unable to work anymore because we have reached retirement age, or for any other reason. It should provide basic financial support and should be valued for the safety net it provides. That is not the case now, and that is why I am advocating for a new social contract that defines the future of our social security system. A good starting point would be the essentials guarantee that my right hon. Friend talked about. That has been proposed by the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, but a wide coalition of charities have advocated for it. They found that 90% of low-income households on universal credit are going without essentials such as food, electricity and clothes.
That inadequacy is the main driver of food bank need, with almost 1.3 million food parcels distributed between April and September 2022. That is just unacceptable in the fifth richest country in the world. An essentials guarantee would ensure that the universal credit standard allowance met a level that provided basic security for a family’s need. The charities calculated that at £120 a week for a single person and £200 a week for a couple. The guarantee would bring us in line with our European neighbours and provide a safety net in the same vein as our NHS. It would also reduce the poverty that too many are experiencing and which has a lifelong impact on children.
Some Members will know that I chair the all-party parliamentary group on health in all policies and have done so for a number of years. In 2020, just before the pandemic, we commissioned a review of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 to analyse the impacts it was having on children and disabled people. Anybody watching or listening is welcome to have a look at that on my website. One of the biggest and most worrying figures that we found was that:
“Each 1% increase in child poverty was significantly associated with an extra 5.8 infant deaths per 100 000 live births…about a third of the increases in infant mortality between 2014 and 2017 can be attributed to rising child poverty”.
That was published in one of the peer-reviewed medical journals. Understanding the impact that that has had on so many families is devastating. It is yet further evidence that far more needs to be done to provide an essentials guarantee.
The flipside of that is that we have one of the highest tax burdens in 40 years, but I was heartened to see members of Patriotic Millionaires—they are all multi-millionaires—come out and say, “We recognise the impact that not having a wealth tax on us is having on the fabric of our society. We do not want our children growing up in a society where there is not the fairness that we grew up with in our country.” It has come up with the proposal of a wealth tax that would fund the essentials guarantee. For me, that group espouses what we as a nation can be.
In contrast—this takes me back to what other hon. Members have said—there has been a rather nasty element in the media. When we look at DWP spending, we must remember that half of it, rightly, goes on the state pension; that is the biggest slice of the spending. The next biggest is on housing benefit. We need to recognise that. Nobody would criticise DWP spending on our pensioners. I urge responsible journalists to  recognise that we should not criticise social security spending on people who are disabled or not able to work because of illness. We must be better than that.
As I conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I did promise that I would be very brief, I repeat that poverty—

Eleanor Laing: Order. For clarification, I am not putting the hon. Lady under any pressure. As far as I am concerned, she has all the time in the world.

Debbie Abrahams: Well, that is an offer that I definitely will refuse this time. As I said, poverty and inequality are not inevitable—they are political choices—and I believe that, like our NHS, our social security system should be there for all of us in our time of need.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesman.

David Linden: May I start, as others have, by sending my thanks to the Chair of our Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), for securing today’s debate and for setting the scene so well? The debate takes place against the backdrop of an ongoing Westminster-made cost of living crisis that affects the livelihoods and lives of people across Scotland and these islands. The harsh, yet inescapable reality is that people in Scotland can no longer afford to pay the price for the economic mismanagement of a Westminster Government they did not elect. Indeed, we have not voted by majority for the Conservatives since 1955.
In May, CPI was still at 8.7%. Prices are still soaring and the cost of living under Westminster control is still far too high for many families who were already struggling to get by after 13 long, brutal years of Tory cuts, Brexit and economic mismanagement. We know that inflation disproportionately impacts lower-income groups such as single parents, who spend a relatively high proportion of their income on food and fuel. Indeed, new Trussell Trust research shows that families are going hungry as a result of the Westminster-made cost of living crisis, with one in seven people in the UK facing hunger in the last year due to a lack of money. Ministers often tell us that the reasons for food bank usage are complex. It is not complex—it is because people do not have enough money.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s latest cost of living tracker found that 5.7 million low-income households are having to cut down or skip meals because they do not have enough money for food, while the number going without items such as food, heating and basic toiletries has remained at about 7 million for more than a year—all of that in the sixth largest economy in the world.
The average interest rate for a two-year fixed-term mortgage has risen to 6%. The Resolution Foundation has said that average annual mortgage repayments are set to rise by £2,900 for those renewing next year. In short, that is the eye-watering Westminster mortgage premium that Scots are paying for the pleasure of a Tory Government they did not elect.
What is more, analysis by the consumer group Which? shows that the prices of popular family meals have risen by 27% in the last year. The Irish and French Governments  have reached agreements with major supermarket retailers to reduce food prices, while the Tory Government are sitting on their hands. It is those low-income families I represent in Parkhead, Shettleston and Baillieston who are paying the price for the sheer intransigence of Conservative Ministers here in London. Even at this late hour in the cost of living crisis, I urge the British Government to use all the powers at their disposal to tackle that crisis on the scale that is required. That does mean that they will have to be bold and radical, and the same is true of the pro-Brexit Labour party.
I turn specifically to universal credit, which is obviously the main focus of the debate. In short, the British Government’s continual refusal to fix the extensive and known-about problems with universal credit is unacceptable, and it is without doubt subjecting some of the most vulnerable people in our communities to additional and unnecessary hardship. With the three main parties in this place now agreeing on the principles of universal credit, there is an opportunity, so we should put our heads together to look at what we can do to fix it.
I will start with the level of universal credit. JRF research shows that support has eroded over decades and that the basic rate of universal credit is now at its lowest level as a proportion of average earnings. Indeed, the JRF’s latest cost of living tracker warns that about nine in 10 low-income households on UC have gone without at least one essential for the third survey in over a year.
For most people referred to food banks in the Trussell Trust network, the design and delivery of the social security system are major contributors to their inability to afford the essentials. The majority of people—indeed, some 89%—referred to food banks in the Trussell Trust network receive a means-tested benefit such as universal credit, but that did not provide them with enough to cover the cost of the essentials. As the right hon. Member for East Ham said, JRF and the Trussell Trust are together calling on Ministers to implement that essentials guarantee to ensure that, at a minimum, the basic rate of universal credit covers life’s essentials and that support can never be pulled below that level.

Chris Stephens: Is not another problem the insane part of the system where people pay back money because of advances and the level of deductions—more than £60 a month is being deducted from my hon. Friend’s constituents’ and my constituents’ universal credit? That envelops that cycle of poverty.

David Linden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point on the record. He was my predecessor on the Select Committee and follows this work well. I will come to debt and deductions, because that is one of the big issues raised in the evidence that the Select Committee receives, certainly by the stakeholders that we meet. He is spot-on to draw attention to the £60 from each of our constituents that is paid back to the Government when it could be spent in our local economies.
New CPAG research finds that the digital aspects of universal credit routinely lead to wrong amounts being awarded to claimants—often those who are most vulnerable—and to breaches of rule of law principles. That is why I have repeatedly called on the Government to reverse their cuts to universal credit and working tax  credits. Let us not forget that this was the biggest overnight cut to welfare in 70 years, inflicting hardship on people who were already struggling. To have done that as we came out of the teeth of the pandemic was particularly cruel.
Rather than offering one-off payments to shore up struggling families’ incomes, the DWP should reverse the damaging policies that are impacting on the most vulnerable people. It should reinstate the UC uplift at £25 per week and, of course, extend it to legacy benefits. Let us not forget the 2.5 million disabled people, so ably advocated for by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who were cruelly left behind without that uplift during the pandemic. The Government also need to remove the benefit cap and the two-child limit with its associated rape clause. They also need to halt the punitive sanctions regime so that all households are lifted out of poverty now and in future.
I turn to the benefit cap. As the Poverty Alliance points out, the cap’s design means that those who require the highest level of support from the benefit system are the most likely to be affected. That is simply unjust. Based on the latest departmental figures, 114,000 UK households have had their benefit capped and 86% of those are families with children. The benefit cap disproportionately impacts lone-parent families, the majority of whom are women—a point made by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) —as well as larger and ethnic minority families.
The same is true of the two-child limit. Thousands of families with children will be pushed into poverty because Ministers on the Treasury Bench refuse to scrap the two-child limit on child tax credits and universal credit. A new London School of Economics study found that the policy’s impoverishment of larger low-income households has helped few parents get a job. Instead, its main function has been to push families further into poverty and to damage their mental health.
I wonder why Ministers are so furled to the two-child limit. The vast majority of them are actually quite embarrassed by it, and that is before we get to the associated rape clause, or as the Government like to call it, the “non-consensual sex exemption”. When this Government go around lecturing people about the values of global Britain, I am pretty sure they do not tell folk that the state will only support the first two children in the family, but if someone can prove that their child was born as a result of rape, that is okay.

James Wild: indicated dissent.

David Linden: The Parliamentary Private Secretary is shaking his head at that, but probably because he is so embarrassed.
The five-week wait for a first payment is needlessly pushing people into hardship. The issue could easily be fixed by implementing the Scottish National party’s proposal to turn advance payment loans into non-repayable grants after the claimant has been deemed eligible. The Trussell Trust, which I referenced earlier, has consistently shown that the five-week wait for universal credit is a key driver in the need for food banks, both during those five weeks and after the payments have started.
I want to draw attention to the young parent penalty in UC, which Ministers must end. It denies single parents under the age of 25 the same level of social security as those above that age, and it pushes those affected into real poverty. Let us not forget that when under-25s go into Aldi, Lidl, Morrisons or whatever supermarket, they do not get a discount on their shopping because they are under 25. I find that Ministers have an obsession with that.

Wendy Chamberlain: The hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this issue, as have I. Does he agree that the response I received from the previous Secretary of State on this point—that under-25s were treated differently because they tended to still be at home with their parents—is a pretty spurious argument and excuse from the Department?

David Linden: That is right. It was not unusual for the previous Secretary of State to say things which, after some scrutiny, might not make sense. The hon. Lady is right. For Ministers to hide behind the housing crisis—caused by this Tory Government—as some kind of justification for ensuring that people under 25 get less support does not stand up to scrutiny. That point was hammered home to me on Friday, when I was in Drumchapel visiting the Christians Against Poverty debt centre, to meet staff and volunteers there, to whom I pay enormous tribute for their sterling work.
According to One Parent Families Scotland, as a result of the young parent penalty, young couple parents are around £100 worse off per month than single parents, and around £65 worse off a month than over-25s. That research found that 55% of children with a mum under 25 are in relative poverty, and 49% are in absolute poverty. Let us never forget that those statistics are the result of the structural inequality put in place by intransigent Ministers. Although I certainly welcome the change whereby people on UC will now be able to claim childcare support upfront, I am afraid that does not change the fundamental issue that the amount of UC that people receive is simply not enough. Families will still be required to make up the 15% shortfall in their overall childcare costs under UC rules.
An issue that continues to come up in evidence at the Select Committee is that far too many households face destitution because of DWP rules that push them into debt through sanctions and reductions—a point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). Aberlour Children’s Charity produced a report that states that half of families with children in Scotland who receive universal credit are having their incomes reduced by the DWP to cover debts to public bodies. I hope the Select Committee will be able to drill into that a bit more. It is increasingly a problem, and I am sure I am not the only MP who sees people raising it regularly at advice surgeries.
It is well established and on record that the SNP completely opposes the widespread use of sanctions, as there is clear evidence that they do not work. Indeed, evidence from the Department’s report admits that sanctions have a minimal effect on moving people into work. Instead, people who are sanctioned end up earning less than those who have not been sanctioned, or simply become economically inactive.

Margaret Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman is making such important remarks. Does he agree that the impact of sanctions is detrimental to people’s mental health? We are facing a mental health crisis. If we want to support people getting into work, we need to make sure that they are not struggling on the breadline.

David Linden: The hon. Lady is spot on. Sometimes, Ministers overlook when they take those decisions—yes, they might be driven by focus groups and such things—that the state bears the cost. If somebody hits a period of mental ill health or is made homeless, the health service or the local authority will pick up the pieces. It is not without cost for the state. I would like Ministers to have the wider picture as they pursue sanctions, because the research shows that they do not work.

Margaret Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman is being generous. Does he agree that the issue of poverty is so concerning for small children because it impacts on the development of the brain and how well they will be able to learn? If a child has a good five years at the start of their life, that will see them through life. So many children in desperate poverty who do not know whether they will get enough food are also in receipt of the anxiety their parents are in, as they battle those stressful situations.

David Linden: I am proud that the Scottish Government invest in things such as the best start grant, the baby box and free school meals, to ensure that young people get the best possible start in life. My local authority in Glasgow is spending millions of pounds on holiday hunger programmes, to ensure that children who receive free school meals during school term time are still being fed. It is a damning indictment on the state that we have to spend money from local authority budgets feeding children because their parents do not have enough money. That is the situation we are in, in the fifth richest economy in the world.
Remarkably, as I am sure we will hear when the Minister responds to the debate, Ministers are still forcing more people into the sanctions regime, which further demonstrates the fundamental issue with the British Government’s attitude to those on low incomes: preventing vulnerable families from receiving the social security they are entitled to and, most importantly, when they need it the most.
Before I draw my remarks to a close, I want to turn to the local housing allowance. The freeze of LHA rates for three consecutive years is placing additional and needless pressure on tenants and housing associations, and is likely to increase poverty and inequality. That is why Ministers should protect household incomes and support renters by restoring LHA rates to the 30th percentile as a minimum. The SNP has long called for the British Government to fix those fundamental flaws in our social security system but, as is so often the case, it falls on deaf ears each and every time, to the extent that every time I take part in one of these debates, it feels like groundhog day.
The blunt truth is that the Scottish Government cannot change those policies while 85% of welfare expenditure and income replacement benefits remain reserved to this institution here in London. That includes universal credit. By all means, I am happy to take part  in debates and make suggestions about how we repair the social security system, but it is difficult to conclude anything other than Westminster—whether the Tories or the pro-Brexit Labour party—has zero appetite to genuinely step in and sew up a system that is failing some of the most vulnerable people in society. For that reason, the only way genuinely to bring about that compassionate, fair and dignified social security system in Scotland is with the full powers of independence. Frankly, that cannot come soon enough.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Minister.

Alison McGovern: This has been a good, important and timely debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, on bringing the debate to the Floor of the House. He rightly opened it by placing in context the size of the Department and its central place at the heart of economic policy, and discussed the work of his Committee, which has been substantial, on looking into some of the Department’s very significant flaws. Given the economic situation the country now faces, the work of the Committee has never been more important. As he mentioned, it has published very important and significant reviews, and some of the recommendations have been adopted by the Government, so I applaud him for securing the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), in her usual way, explained the manner in which poverty harms people not just in their financial life but in every single aspect of their life. The Government would do well to listen to her.
I want to make some brief remarks—with an emphasis on brief—as many good points have already been made and I will not be repeating them all. I want to get to the heart of the points that have been discussed, in particular on universal credit. I have been in this House long enough to remember the country before universal credit, so I am able to compare and contrast the system we had before with the one we have now. I offer this reflection based on that experience.
On its introduction, universal credit was claimed to be a kind of cure-all which would release everyone from the so-called trap of poverty. I did not think that that was going to be true when it was introduced and I do not think it is true now. The Department for Work and Pensions, in its spending and policy choices, has to be far more than just universal credit and social security, important though they are. As much as the pensions side of the Department is a huge part of its spending and very important, it must also be the department for dignity: the dignity of work and the dignity of well-functioning, decent social protection. Those two areas of policy must work hand in hand to ensure that the ups and downs of life do not upend life chances when unfortunate things happen. We should be using good work and social protection to help people to move on and move up in life. The Chair of the Select Committee and other Members have provided a good survey of what is happening in the Department at the moment. I would argue that on both work and social protection it is failing.
On work, to put it simply, we have fewer people in work now than before the pandemic. That cannot be a success. We have businesses crying out for staff, yet, unlike in other countries, our employment rate has not recovered from the pandemic. That is a huge failure. Pay, the money in people’s pockets, has been stagnant for the past decade. We think about the promises made about universal credit and all the Department does, so what questions has the Minister asked about that? What research has he commissioned to get underneath why pay is so stagnant? We have had reviews of in-work progression. The Government have claimed that they want to tackle our productivity crisis. What research and evidence has the DWP actually published to show, despite the claims made about universal credit supporting people to escape the so-called poverty trap that Conservative Members felt previous Governments had created, why we have had such stagnant levels of pay?
It is arguable that the Department’s policy choices might have exacerbated the labour market crisis, so I ask the Minister again: what policies does he have now, today, to help people escape low-paid work? For all the Government have talked about the possibilities of universal credit, why has it delivered so very little in terms of the money in people’s pockets and their chances of getting on? Has universal credit really delivered all that was promised? On all those areas—work incentives, the chances families have to do better, pay progression and supporting employers to get the skilled staff they need—I look at all the Department does and I have many questions about the disappearance of that promised success.
We have had a series of failed employment schemes. Kickstart failed to deliver what it was said it would deliver. We heard from Members about restart and the work and health programme, and all we do not know about what they are doing. Looking at the labour market and everything that the Bank of England has said about the consequences for our economy of the state of the labour market, does the Minister really believe that the DWP is helping, or is it a hindrance? I would love to hear him talk about published evidence that the Department’s policies are actually helping.
Finally on work, one major challenge for our economy is the imbalanced labour market. Businesses in many towns across the country are crying out for staff, yet we have an unemployment challenge. Some towns and cities have areas where unemployment is twice the national average. How can that be right in a country that has such a need for staff? Does the Minister really believe that his Department’s spending and policy choices are helping? Work should be the way that all of us achieve our hopes and ambitions. I just wish the Department was able to live up to those ambitions.
As many people have said, social security should be the backstop that puts a floor beneath families, yet at almost every step over the past decade the Conservative Government have made that harder. At every turn, the political turbulence they have created has had an economic cost for our country as a whole, and for families up and down the country. The inflation we now face makes life harder for everybody, but not equally. If we look at the money families must now find to put food on the table and pay their bills, we know that the choices made by the Tories have made life harder for those who were already finding it tough. Their failings on energy have  made life much harder, in particular for people with disabilities who pay significant extra costs. It is a well-evidenced phenomenon that people who face illness or disability have significant challenges with the rising cost of energy. The Conservative Government have never taken their needs into account enough. I agree with comments made by both my colleagues on the Select Committee that the relationship between the Department and people with disabilities is not nearly good enough to achieve what we would wish for them.
The evidence of failure is all around us, whether it is the open doors of food banks or the closed doors of businesses who have been unable to survive this crisis of inflation and staff shortages. On the housing crisis, I would bet anything—I am not a betting woman, but I would none the less bet anything—that almost every Member has seen a rise in their housing case load. Even those with a relatively low case load have seen it rise in relation to the recent housing crisis.
One fact above all shines out of the Department’s accounts: rising ill health, which is having economic consequences for all of us and disastrous consequences for people who are trying to earn money to keep their family housed and fed. Over the past decade or more, the Tories have been not just not up to the challenge; they have actively made it worse.

Guy Opperman: It is an honour once again to present the case on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions in an estimates day debate. I have lost track of the number of times I have done this, but I have certainly done so on numerous occasions during my seven years at the Department.
It is, first of all, my privilege to thank all DWP staff—whom I regard as a massive help and not a hindrance, as some may have suggested—for the fantastic work that they do up and down the country.

David Linden: Will the Minister give way?

Guy Opperman: No.
The Government have never paid more for the pensions that we support in this country, we have never paid more for the benefit support that we provide in this country, we have never paid more for the housing support that we provide in this country, and we have never paid more for the disabled in this country. As we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the national health service, let me also put on record my thanks to the NHS. I have had my life saved twice by the NHS, once after I collapsed in Central Lobby in 2011. I got into politics because of my attempts to save my local hospital, and I am proud to have visited Hexham General Hospital this week to see the amazing new maternity suite that has recently been opened.
Much has been said today about a variety of issues, but I want to try to put the debate in context. The Government clearly understand the pressures that households are facing. We are all familiar with the root causes of our higher costs, including the global factors: the illegal war in Ukraine brought about by Vladimir Putin, the aftermath and consequences of the pandemic, and the furlough scheme and the other support that we  set out in great detail and the country provided at a time of difficulty. We are committed to delivering on our priority of halving inflation, which will help to ease those pressures for everyone and raise living standards.
Alongside that work, we continue to implement a significant package of cost of living measures to support the most vulnerable during 2023-24. We have increased benefits and state pensions by 10.1%, and raised the benefit cap by the same amount so that more people feel the benefit of uprating. For low-paid workers, we have increased the national living wage by 9.7% to £10.42 an hour; that represents an increase of more than £1,600 in the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage. That increase, and the increases that we made in the national minimum wage in April, have given a pay rise to about 2.9 million workers. To help parents, we are delivering a significant expansion of childcare support, including a 47% increase in the maximum amount of universal credit childcare payments. As I said in the House last week, that is a dramatic increase. In addition, where there are gaps in provision, notwithstanding the above cost of living payments, the £842 million extension of our household support fund into 2023-24 means that councils across England can continue to help families with grocery bills and other essentials.

Margaret Greenwood: Some universal credit claimants can apply to have the housing elements of their universal credit paid directly to the landlord. However, a report by the Child Poverty Action Group on the discovery phase of managed migration identified delays or errors in the setting up of direct payments and poor communication between the DWP, landlords and claimants, leading to people falling into arrears. That is clearly a serious state of affairs for anyone to find themselves in. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do about it?

Guy Opperman: I will ask the Minister who is responsible for that to write to the hon. Lady. However, her intervention brings me to the issue of housing, which was raised by several Members.
In 2022-23, the Government are projected to have spent £30 billion to support renters. That is 1.4% of GDP. Members may have criticised that sum, but they should be aware that it represents the highest spending on household rental support in any country in the OECD. The next highest is 0.9% of GDP. That figure is clearly higher than the figure that obtained when we came to office. Moreover, there are 2 million more homes than there were then, and more homes are meeting decent homes standards. I could go on.
Employment now stands at 30 million. It is up 23,000 on the month and 73,000 on the quarter, and vacancies are down again—35,000 down on the month in May and 79,000 down on the quarter. Today I met representatives of UKHospitality and a host of hospitality providers at the Department to discuss some of the long-term vacancy issues that they wished to raise. I believe we can continue to work with jobcentres throughout the country to try and address that, and to increase the overall employment rate, which was up by 0.1% on the month and 0.2% on the quarter, with unemployment down by 0.1 percentage points on the month as of May. Economic inactivity is down by 0.4 percentage points on the quarter and down by 781,000 since the 2010 general election. It is clear  that the pandemic had impacts, and the progress in certain areas is not as quick as one would like, but we have made huge efforts to turn that around, and all the indications from all the labour market statistics released by the Office for National Statistics in May are that the trends are in the right direction.

Margaret Greenwood: Will the Minister give way?

Guy Opperman: No, I will not. I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
Let me say something about cost of living payments. We are building on, and extending, the one-off cash payments that we provided in 2022-23, when we made more than £30 million worth of cost of living payments, including the £150 disability payment to 6 million people, £650 for more than 8 million households on means-tested benefits, and an additional £300 on top of the winter fuel payment for more than 8 million pensioner households. That put hundreds of pounds directly and quickly into the pockets of millions of people.
Criticism was made of universal credit as a principle. The first—and simple—point that I would make, which I think was acknowledged by the Chair of the Select Committee, is that the legacy system would in no way have been able to provide the degree of support that universal credit provided during covid, and it would in no way be able to provide an ongoing degree of cost of living support. Universal credit, as we see, provides a massive amount of support on an ongoing basis, which is targeted to help those most impacted by rising prices throughout this financial year.

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister give way?

Guy Opperman: There are about a dozen points made by the right hon. Gentleman to which I was going to respond, but I will give way once again.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the Minister. When does he expect to make a decision on whether the cost of living payments will continue for a further year? When, this year, is that decision likely to be made?

Guy Opperman: Because the right hon. Gentleman and I have worked together for many years—and I emphasise “together”—he will know that I have been a humble junior functionary at the Department for Work and Pensions for a very long time, never to rise any higher. Let me also say to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) that I have had the privilege of serving under three female Secretaries of State before the present Secretary of State. I think I am now on my seventh Secretary of State.
These matters are monumentally above my pay grade, and, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, having done my job and many other jobs in the Government, they will be decided by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister at some stage over the course of the coming year. [Interruption.] I have much to be modest about, to be honest. As I have said, these matters are above my pay grade and beyond my knowledge, but they will be considered. There will be an autumn statement in November, which will be the obvious time for decisions to be telegraphed, if not made.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points, and I will try to answer some of them in the time that I have. He mentioned prison leavers. The Department  recognises the need for prisoners and carers to be able to make advance claims for universal credit, and there is a working process in place to support that. I have met the prisons Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who will welcome any questions that will follow during the justice debate, and the social mobility Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who looks after most aspects of matters relating to prisoners, on several occasions to try to drive forward universal credit take-up. However, it requires the individual to desire to do that, and that is clearly complicated and not easy. It is a work in progress, but it is very much something that we are aware of.
I know that the social mobility Minister is giving evidence to the Select Committee tomorrow, so I will not address in too much detail the issues the right hon. Member for East Ham raised on the Health and Safety Executive, which is one of the few briefs I have not held in the last few years. He rightly raised the issue of transparency, and I would respectfully say that I agree with him. The present Secretary of State has transformed the position in that regard. The right hon. Gentleman knows my strong view that, save where we have to provide data on a monthly basis under labour market statistics, we should have six-monthly provision of the vast plethora of data, linked to the two fiscal events of the year, but that is a work in progress. The Department is definitely reviewing all aspects of those things.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the flexible support fund and particular issues about people taking buses to work. I want to take issue with that, because there is absolutely no doubt that a jobcentre can use the flexible support fund to support bus or other transport fares for agreed work-related activity. If it is for a work-related activity, that support can be provided as it is in other contexts—childcare being the one of which he will be particularly aware. I would certainly very much hope that the individual jobcentre that he referred to would be aware of that.
On fraud and error, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that huge amounts of effort are being made by the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, who takes control of that particular part of the portfolio, and by the Secretary of State in a multitude of different ways. We have a large number of extra staff who have been brought in to address fraud and error. According to the latest national statistics, it has fallen to 3.6% from 4%, and overpayments from fraud are down to 2.7% compared with 3% in 2021-22. Universal credit losses have fallen by nearly 2% over a similar period. Bluntly, we are trying to crack down on those who are exploiting the benefit system, and we want to make it very clear that we are coming after those people. We want to ensure that the maximum amount of support goes to the people who need it.
The targeted support includes support for people on means-tested benefits such as universal credit, with up to three cost of living payments totalling up to £900. We have delivered the first £301 payment to 8.3 million households in support worth £2.5 billion. The two further payments of £300 and £299 will be made in the autumn and next spring. To help with additional costs, we have paid the disability cost of living payment to 6 million people as well as paying the winter fuel support payment. A huge amount is being done in  jobcentres, whether that is through the in-work progression offer, the support of extra work coaches, the over-50s support, the administrative earnings threshold support or the 37 new district progression leads who are working with key partners, including local government, employers and skilled providers, to identify and develop local opportunities and to overcome barriers that limit progression.
The hon. Member for North East Fife raised a number of pension matters. Clearly, I continue to defend the actions of the Labour Government and the coalition Government on the rise in state pension age. She referred to both the LEAP exercise and what has happened at HMRC, and they are both works in progress. I do not believe there is any fundamental change to that of which she has been previously advised. On pension credit, she will be aware that there has been an increase in excess of, I think, 170% in applications. There is a slight backlog, but that is coming down dramatically. On the gender pensions gap, she will be aware of the changes to the new state pension, which are massively advantageous to women, and of the fact that successive Governments—starting with the Labour Government and the Turner commission, and then the coalition—have brought in automatic enrolment specifically to address that particular issue.
The hon. Lady raised a final point about those who change jobs in later life. I cannot overstate the importance of the project for which I have been pressing for only five and a half years now, which is the mid-life MOT. I am delighted to say it is now being rolled out across the country, whether that is online, in jobcentres up and down the country or, more particularly, in the three private sector bodies that are trialling particular processes. If she is not yet acquainted with that, I would strongly urge her to become so, particularly because in her area of Scotland in North East Fife there are, I know, providers that are offering that process. I can provide her with the details. Aviva and others are doing very good stuff there.
I am conscious that I have been speaking for some time, but the practical reality is that we believe we are removing the barriers that prevent people from working. We believe that we are reducing the number of people who are economically inactive, with a fifth consecutive month when inactivity has declined. I accept that there is more to do, and I am determined to leave no stone unturned in taking the decisive action needed across Government to see that downward trend continue.
In conclusion, I believe that we are tackling inflation to help manage the cost of living. We are providing extra support. The economic trends, as shown by the labour market statistics, are heading in the right direction and, with the Government’s ongoing significant package of cost of living support, that is worth over £94 billion in excess of the rises to state pension and benefits. We are protecting those most in need from the worst impact of rising prices by putting more pounds in people’s pockets, and I commend these estimates to the House.

Eleanor Laing: To conclude, I call Sir Stephen Timms.

Stephen Timms: Let me reiterate my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for enabling us to hold the debate, and I would like to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate as well. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) spoke in the debate last year as well, I am pleased to say, and I want to pick up one point she made about the gender pensions gap. I join her in welcoming the fact that the Pensions Minister has now come forward with a definition of that, so that we know what we are talking about. But I also agree with her that we need a target to reduce it, and I hope that we will see that in due course as well.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for all her work on the Committee and her very committed work on behalf of disabled people. This afternoon, she spoke about the scourge of disability poverty and some of the things that we need to do to tackle that.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for combining his work on the Committee with his Front-Bench role. He makes a very valuable contribution to the work of the Committee. Let me endorse his tribute to the work of the organisation Christians Against Poverty, which is very valuable. It is doing a very impressive job all over the country.
I am grateful for the interventions we have had from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens)—it is good to see him back on this beat—and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil).
I am grateful to the Minister for suggesting that we will perhaps hear about the plans for further cost of living payments in the autumn statement. I think they will be needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) was absolutely right to make the point from the Opposition Front Bench that in many respects the security has been removed from social security. That is a lamentable feature of the last few years. The level of benefits is much too low and it has not been properly uprated. I want to renew my appeal. We did have a proper uprating this year, thankfully, but we need that again next year. We are talking about a historically low level of benefits. That is the major reason why food bank demand is still rising. If we do not have a full uprating next year, it will rise further.
I am glad the Minister has confirmed that the Department is reviewing arrangements for transparency. I am grateful to him for that and the confirmation he has given of the direction of travel and the work in progress. I am also interested to hear about the staff being recruited to tackle fraud and error. The Committee would be very interested to follow progress on that and perhaps to table some questions about how many staff there are.
I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to have this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone who has contributed to it.
Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54)

Ministry of Justice

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2024, for expenditure by the Ministry of Justice:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £6,418,705,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1383 of Session 2022–23,
(2) further resources, not exceeding £1,528,277,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £7,350,811,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Scott Mann.)

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to open this important debate, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to debate this part of the Ministry of Justice estimates. I am glad to see the Minister and the shadow Minister in their places.
I want to raise succinctly, but in some detail, a number of pressing areas that trouble the Select Committee on Justice. Despite the funding increases that have recently been achieved, there is a background that causes real difficulties to the Prison and Probation Service.
I will highlight four areas in particular where the Minister ought to seek to persuade the Government to prioritise and increase their efforts, for the sake of both those who work in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and the offenders it is meant to manage and hold safely but humanely, with a view to reform wherever possible.
I will flag up the following issues: prison capacity, the projected prison population and overcrowding; the quality of the prison estate; the prison and probation workforce, and workforce shortages; and the youth custody estate. The Select Committee has looked at these matters on a number of occasions, and we are currently carrying out an inquiry into the prison workforce—I am grateful to everyone who has given evidence so far, and I appreciate the engagement we have had with Ministers.
I will start with one of the most pressing issues facing the Prison Service today. We now have the latest prison population projections and the reasons for their increase. The reality is simply that the prison population has grown substantially over the past 30 years. As of last Friday, there were some 85,851 people in prison. The number has changed a bit even since then.
Despite the Government’s efforts to manage the population, England and Wales has the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe and, of course, it is projected to grow further. We see no sign of the imprisonment rate falling. At the same time as having one of the highest imprisonment rates in western Europe, we also have one of the worst reoffending rates. Successive Governments have failed to address that ironic dichotomy.

Conor McGinn: The hon. Gentleman, the Minister and the shadow Minister know my bona fides on matters of law and order. Bad and  dangerous people should be in prison to protect the public, but we do not talk often enough about prevention and rehabilitation. It would cost far less to keep people out of prison, and to stop them going back into prison, than to keep them in prison.

Bob Neill: I could not agree more. The current Lord Chancellor has said previously that prison is there for the people of whom we are entitled to be afraid, not for the people with whom we are annoyed or angry. That is an important distinction, because prison is there to deal with those who are a danger to society or who have significantly harmed society; it is not there, in an ideal world, to deal with people who, for any number of reasons, have got their life into a mess. Such people can be a nuisance to society, but there is surely a better way to handle them than incarceration in the closed estate at a cost of some £40,000 a year.
The Justice Committee held an inquiry into the prison population back in 2017. There was about a 15% reduction in the prisons budget between 2015 and 2020, and it was found that had an impact on the safety and decency of the estate, following a reduction in the number of prison officers between 2010 and 2015. In truth, there has been underinvestment in prisons and, I would argue, underinvestment in the whole justice system for decades, under Governments of all complexions. Because the Ministry of Justice is both an unprotected Department, in budgetary terms, and a downstream Department, it often picks up the consequences of things that have gone wrong elsewhere in society and elsewhere in Government. The Ministry of Justice is particularly vulnerable.
In 2017 we saw there had been a 20% increase in the prison population over 15 years, and future projections indicated growth to 2022. There was, at that time, a transformation programme committed to expanding the prison estate by 10,000 places and to closing outdated prisons. Sadly, the truth is that the programme was not fully delivered. The Public Accounts Committee reported that just 206 places were delivered by the programme.
In 2018 the Ministry of Justice decided not to deliver the prison estate transformation in full because of budgetary pressures. Around 6,500 places were removed from the programme, but nothing has been done to reduce demand. Indeed, a number of changes to sentencing policy have, in fact, increased demand in a number of areas.
The 2017 inquiry found clear evidence that the reduction of spending in prisons had had a major destabilising effect. Reducing staff numbers put more pressure on remaining staff, and the way in which facilities management services were outsourced through block contracts meant the operation was very remote and very unresponsive to the day-to-day needs in prisons. It was very frustrating for governors, who were frequently finding that it took months to get basic repairs done. The nature of the contract was seriously at fault. I do not have a problem with contracting out in the right circumstances, but the way it was done was extremely inefficient.
Six years on, the Prison Service faces largely the same issues. The population has continued to increase, there is still an issue with the recruitment and retention of staff, and the estate still has capacity pressures. There was another prison expansion programme in 2019, and the “Prisons Strategy” White Paper said the provision of prison places would make a “more modern and secure” estate.
There was an ambitious target of 20,000 additional prison places as part of that programme, but we now know that planning permission has not been granted for three prisons—either it has been refused or no decision has been made—and the Ministry of Justice is having to appeal those planning decisions. That is hardly joined-up government. Surely the risk of delays in planning should have been foreseen at the outset.
On behalf of the Committee, I wrote to the permanent secretary at the MOJ following the publication of its main estimates, and I am grateful to her for responding yesterday. Disappointingly, only 8,200 new prison places will have been created and made operational by May 2025. We are about 11,800 short of the Government’s target of 20,000 by the mid-2020s. Given that background, is the Minister convinced that the current prison expansion programme is genuinely deliverable? When are we going to get to the 20,000 places? What steps are being taken to speed up a rate of delivery that, so far, will not get us there?
Prisons in England and Wales are reaching breaking point; the growth in the adult male population has forced the Government to use police cells to accommodate prisoners, through Operation Safeguard. The Government have said that would be in place for no longer than is necessary, but how much longer does the Minister anticipate that will be? How frequently is Operation Safeguard being used?
I mentioned the changes to sentencing policy, which have put more pressure on prisons. For example, we have seen changes to magistrates’ sentencing powers; there was an increase to two years and then, suddenly, a temporary reduction back down to one year. That is not good lawmaking, and it is not fair or just sentencing policy to have a lottery whereby when a defendant appears before the court decides whether he is dealt with by the magistrates or committed to the Crown court. As we all know, that move was done not because magistrates sentence more heavily—there was no evidence to suggest that—but because if people are sent to the Crown court for sentence, as the magistrates deem their powers insufficient, it will take longer before they end up in prison. There is a bit of sleight of hand here, as that was done to ease out the demand in the prison system, pushing people’s arrival in prison back down the road a bit, in the hope that somebody else will have left by then and so a bit more space is available.
That is not the right approach and it puts more pressure on another part of the MOJ’s responsibility, the Crown courts, because more cases are then being sent to them when they could have been dealt with more quickly by the magistrates. The Government need to address that situation. What is going to be done to deal with it? How long does the MOJ envisage this reduction in sentencing powers lasting? What is being done to consult the judiciary on whether that is a proper approach to the use of judicial resources and sentencing policy? I know that there has been a temporary response in respect of rapid deployment cells, which may offer some support. It may be of some assistance, but what is the long-term plan? How long do we envisage those cells being in use? What is the plan eventually to integrate them with the rest of the estate?
We have the plans for the 20,000 prison places, but the delay is significant. That means there is significant overcrowding in the estate, which is the second point I want to address. The overcrowding is such that it is difficult for prison staff to carry out rehabilitative work, which is one of the objectives of prison. That feeds into that high rate of recidivism and reoffending that I have referred to. It also creates real challenges on our basic duties of care towards both prisoners and prison officers. When the state removes someone’s liberty for the broader public good, it has the duty to commit to keep them safe and in decent conditions.
Equally, the state has a duty to provide decent, safe and reasonable working environments for those who supervise the prisoners and run the prisons. I fear that in a number of our prisons we are simply not getting there at the moment. We are simply failing in that, and repeated reports from His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons have flagged that up. The growth in the number of urgent notifications that have been issued by the inspector to the MOJ is also evidence of that. I appreciate that the Minister has always responded promptly to those urgent notification procedures, and I am grateful to him for that, but it speaks to an underlying problem that needs to be resolved. I suspect that that can be done only through sustained investment and by thinking about whether we are using the alternatives to prison effectively. To go back to the point made by the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), we need to make sure that we use it for those who are dangerous, where there is no other safe means of dealing with them and we cannot use cheaper and often more effective rehabilitative alternatives.
We still have many Victorian prisons—the “local prisons”, as they are often called—some of which are in a very poor state. They have been described as “not fit for purpose” and “dilapidated”. There has been historical under-investment in maintenance and we have a backlog of maintenance work in the prisons. In March 2021 this was estimated to be about £1 billion-worth. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is regularly taking prison cells out of use because of their state of disrepair. In the decade between 2009-10 and 2019-20, some 1,730 prison cells were permanently out of use for failing to meet the required standards. The lack of money going into basic maintenance therefore adds to the capacity crisis.

Andrew Slaughter: The Chair of the Justice Committee is making an excellent critique of the system. There is something ironic about prisons being so undermaintained and needing £1 billion spent on them, such that their accommodation is not available, when some £4 billion is being spent on new prisons at the same time. It looks as if we are just forgetting the ones that we have, particularly the remand and the local prisons.

Bob Neill: I have a lot of sympathy with that point. The irony is that the chief inspector of prisons, in his 2021 annual report, describes some of those old prisons as
“cold, dark and shabby cells…often plagued by damp and cockroaches, leaking pipes and toilets, and broken or missing furniture and windows”
but, at the same time, as we have already observed, the new prison building schedule is way behind and, because of the planning situation, so far we have no assurance  about when those spaces will be delivered. In any event, they will not replace the dilapidated prisons, as we had originally hoped, but will simply increase capacity, because we have a tap that nobody seems able to find the means of properly turning off, in terms of those coming into the system.
The original plan was to close old prisons as part of the prison estate transformation programme, but that has not happened. In 2019 the Minister’s predecessor said that they would need to be kept open. Well, how long do we expect to keep those prisons open? What is the long-term plan for those prisons? What is the plan to ensure that the risks in relation to planning permissions and restrictive covenants, which plagued the potential redevelopment of Holloway, for example, are recognised and sorted out well in advance of the commitment of the capital?
It is worth observing that we have had an increase in the capital departmental expenditure limits for prisons, which is welcome, but if we are spending only a fraction of it so far—as I recall it is about £4 billion, and we have spent about £1.6 billion so far—clearly we have resource being allocated by the Treasury that we cannot have confidence that the Ministry is able to spend and use to deliver in a timely fashion. What steps is the Minister taking to deal with that? What reassurance can he give us? What is the plan to speed up that programme and get the resource spent where it is needed?
The other issue I want to deal with is the operational workforce—as I said, the Committee is currently running an inquiry on that. I pay tribute to the men and women who work in our prisons. They do a very tough job, which probably no one in this House would want to do. They do it on behalf of society, frequently in difficult and unpleasant conditions—sometimes unacceptable conditions—and at some risk to themselves. They deserve to have the recognition that I do not think they always get. On behalf of the Justice Committee, I recognise and salute them for what they do, but we need more than just recognition and warm words; we need some real support for them.
As part of the inquiry, the Justice Committee undertook a survey of serving prison officers. Some 6,582 staff responded to it, which was a decent number. The responses were striking. We found that half of band 3 to band 5 staff do not feel safe at the prison they work in. Feeling safe at work is surely a basic right for anyone. Half is a frightening statistic. Reports from the inspector and the independent monitoring boards have highlighted the growing number of assaults, both on staff by prisoners and between prisoners. That is a result of the cramped, overcrowded and stressful conditions in which many prisoners are held, so perhaps it is no surprise that the prison officers feel so concerned about that.
Band 3 to band 5 and band 2 are the key operational grades—the frontline people who do jobs on the wings. Only 15% of band 2 operational staff felt they had proper, regular training; 25% of band 3 to band 5 staff said they had regular training. That means the majority of staff do not think that they have such training. Surely training people is a basic part of making sure that we professionalise and keep the workforce up to scratch? We are bringing in various protective equipment for them; they need to be trained to use it.
It is no surprise that morale is low. More than 70% of staff in band 2 and 80% of staff in bands 3 to 5 said that staff morale was not good at the prison in which they  worked. If that is the position with the frontline staff, is it any wonder that we have a problem not just with recruitment, but with retention? It is clear that there is a real issue with experienced officers leaving the service. When things get difficult in prison, when those tensions threaten to boil over, and when there is potential dispute or violence on the wings, it is exactly those experienced officers—the old hands, the men and women who have been around the system—who know how to deal with sometimes quite damaged and challenging individuals. Their experience is more necessary than anyone’s to calm things down and to prevent things from escalating. Therefore, unless we have a proper strategy for retention, we are creating a potential powder keg for the future.
Ultimately, we have both to retain and to increase the number of staff. Unless we do that, we will not get the purposeful activity that is necessary to make prisons beneficial; otherwise we end up just warehousing individuals with no benefit at the end of it. That pressure on staffing and overcrowding in prisons is reflected in the concern of the president of the Prison Governors Association, Andrea Albutt, who said that the prison system faces an immediate crisis and could run out of prison places as early as mid-July. What is the Minister’s assessment of that? Does he agree with the president of the Prison Governors Association that, in a few days’ time, we could run out of space? If so, we are in a very grave situation indeed.
What, too, about the observations of the Shannon Trust—I am very grateful for its information—pointing out that statistics from the Office of National Statistics, HM Prison and Probation Service and the voluntary sector suggest that some 62% of all those incarcerated have a literacy level lower than an average 11-year-old? Given that we have some 85,000 people in prison, that potentially equates to about 53,000 people who have real literacy deficits. Without that being put right, what is their hope of getting a job on release? How do we then get them out of that cycle of reoffending? Because it is so difficult to carry out education activities in those cramped and inadequate facilities and to attract staff to do the tough job of education work in prisons, all too frequently, the level of courses is not being delivered in the way that was intended. What will the Minister do to increase the amount of education and purposeful activity that we see in our prisons? We all say that it is the objective, but so far we are not delivering on it in any consistent manner.
Let me look beyond prison to the critical issue of probation, which is sometimes, I fear, regarded as the poor relation of the two. The bulk of the budget goes on prisons because of the very high fixed costs, but probation is essential and we should pay tribute, too, to the probation officers who work so hard. It is essential to give alternatives to prison in the first place and, secondly, to have a proper means of transitioning prisoners back into society when they are released, without the risk of reoffending.
When we carried out our inquiries, we found high staff vacancies, overloaded probation practitioners working overcapacity, poor staff retention and inaccurate risk assessments, all of which were flagged up by the chief inspector of probation, who said that many services are experiencing exceptional staff shortages, with half the positions at key grades in some areas being unfilled. It is no wonder, therefore, that things are being missed. That  is a risk not only to prisoners, but, potentially in the worst case, to the public as well. What is being done to deal with staff pressures in the probation service?
We met many probation officers. They want to improve their service, but they need decent and sustained funding to do so. You cannot have it being switched on and off like a light switch. We know that three fifths of the HMPPS’s expenditure is on prisons. We need to concentrate on and not forget the other two fifths of the budget as well.

Conor McGinn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Neill: I will give way one more time and then I shall move on.

Conor McGinn: I am sorry to intrude on the hon. Gentleman again. He is making an excellent speech. I think he will agree that the privatisation of the probation service was a disaster and it is right that that is being reversed, but that does not mean that probation cannot work with the private and voluntary sector, particularly around employment. There are some great examples of that, with firms such as Timpson, the voluntary sector and organisations such as the Prison Advice and Care Trust. It is important that the service works collectively with all those groups to ensure that we stop people from reoffending, and help them rebuild, get on and be successful in their lives.

Bob Neill: Yet again the hon. Gentleman is spot on. I join him in paying tribute to Timpson, for example. The work of the Timpson family and their firm has been consistently quite exceptional over a long period; I have constituents who benefited through their endeavours and many others in the House will have similar cases.
The hon. Gentleman’s point is an important one. The Justice Committee was critical of the way the probation service was privatised. As he knows, I do not have an ideological objection to privatising services, in the right circumstances and in the right way, but the simple truth is that the way it was done in probation was absolutely the wrong way to do it, splitting up and dislocating the service, with a mixture of that which was retained nationally and that which was with various outsourced companies. It was wholly unsatisfactory and created some dire results.
I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who, when he was Justice Secretary, took the tough but right decision to reverse the process and unify the service once more. That was welcome. None the less, that privatisation is still affecting morale, it has affected retention and it has created considerable dislocation in data sharing between various services. It also broke a number of the local ties that had been developed between the probation service and local authorities and other providers in the area.
Ironically, as the hon. Member for St Helens North says, there is a role for the private sector. The privatisation of probation was intended to have more private sector groups coming in to the provision of probation work and more smaller-scale charities. What happened instead is that it went on bulk contracts to some of the usual big outsourcers and defeated its own object.
We need to work hard now to ensure that we give charities, not-for-profits and small-scale organisations real access to provide services where they can bring a unique perspective. Again, I would be grateful for the Minister’s observations on what the Government will do to encourage those providers into the sector, where they can work collaboratively with the new unified service. We currently have 220,000 people on probation and 16,000 staff in probation. The service has been through any amount of upheaval. It now needs stability and support—both practical financial support and recognition for the work that it does.
I have only a couple more points, Mr Deputy Speaker. I turn now to the youth custody estate. Youth custody, it should be said, has been a real success. We imprison far fewer people now than we used to. That is a real win that all sides involved can take credit for. The service does not face the same pressure of numbers and we have seen a steady decline in the number of children in custody.
One is tempted to say, “Why, if we can do that for children, largely because of a more holistic approach and far more early interventions, can we not apply the same philosophy to the adult estate as well?” The principle is not different: it is getting in early when we see the first signs of the problem in someone’s life that is likely to make them more vulnerable to falling into offending. If we can do that successfully for youngsters, why should we not at least do much more of it in the adult estate too?
However, although the numbers are not an issue, safety is a real concern in the youth estate. Staff retention is a problem in the youth estate too, which has an impact on safety. Lack of staff and training is also a matter of concern and recent inspection reports from His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons have raised concerns about education in the YOIs.
Safety concerns extend beyond physical harm. If the institutions fail to provide adequate educational programmes, vocational training and rehabilitative regimes, young offenders will not receive the tools they need to reintegrate into society. Instead, they will be all the more vulnerable to being sucked back in to the leadership model of their criminal friends on the outside, whom in many cases they joined up with because of the gaps elsewhere in their life. I wrote to the Minister in May about the woeful findings in relation to His Majesty’s Prison Cookham Wood in the urgent notification procedure there, and I am grateful to the Minister for his response. However, it is pretty disappointing to see yet another urgent notification being issued in relation to a failing prison—particularly one where children are involved. We must see improvements for those children. They have been entrusted to the state’s care, and we have a duty to them to ensure that they are safe and that when they leave those institutions, they are in a better place than when they went in.
I recognise the Government’s attempts to stabilise prisons and probation by injecting funding, but they are trying to make up for the great deal that was taken out earlier. I recognise the Minister’s commitment, and I appreciate the personal courtesy and determination in his words. I recognise in particular the commitment of the new Secretary of State, who understands these issues very well from his own professional background. They will both know that we have a lot of ground to make up to get prisons and probation back to where  they should be. The fact that there is some increase in the estimates is good news, as I have demonstrated, but I fear, first, that it may not be enough and, secondly, that we need an assurance that funding will be sustained over a period of years and that the Ministry has the capacity to spend the money wisely and successfully to deliver on all that.
I hope that the Minister will respond on those matters with his usual care and courtesy, but we need not just words but a clear programme of action. Frankly, we need to increase and raise the extent and awareness of public debate about the Prison and Probation Service, as we need to with the whole criminal justice system. It ought to be a decent prisons system and probation system—a means of protecting the public but also of rehabilitating those offenders who can be rehabilitated—and that ought to be as central a mission to any Government as a decent education, health or social care system. It does not get the same level of attention. Perhaps this debate will help, if only in a small way, to flag up some of the issues. We all have a duty to talk about those issues with our constituents, in a measured and calm way, more than perhaps we currently do.

Andrew Slaughter: It is a real pleasure to follow that forensic speech by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). He took us through many of the problems, particularly those in the Prison Service. I will be rather more selective about the issues I speak about, but I will concentrate in particular on prison conditions.
Three weeks ago, I visited Wormwood Scrubs prison in my constituency. It is a prison that I have visited on and off for the past 30 years as an MP, a councillor and a criminal barrister. Despite meeting many dedicated officers and determined governors, I have never changed my mind about it being an unsuitable institution in the 21st century, particularly for the rehabilitation, or indeed the punishment, of offenders. On my most recent visit, I saw that many of the men were sharing one-person cells with unshielded toilets, making their living conditions cramped and unpleasant with no privacy. In addition, the Scrubs, like many prisons, is still operating a 23-hour lock-up regime, in which some prisoners get only one hour a day outside their cells. Is it any wonder, then, that self-harm and poor mental health are at a high across the prison estate?
I recently asked a series of written questions of the Minister’s Department, mainly on the topic of time out of cell. The MOJ responded that it does not hold those statistics centrally and that it was not practical for it to record the data. How does the MOJ hope to have an overview of the wellbeing of the prison population in its care if it does not know what each prison’s time-out-of-cell regime is? I followed up to inquire about why the MOJ does not collect that data centrally, and I was provided yesterday with a response that said that the MOJ would need to record data for each prisoner individually, based on his or her movements each day, to understand time out of cell for each prison. If I may say so, that is a ridiculous response and the Minister has misunderstood the question—not intentionally, I hope.
To get an understanding of each prison’s time-out-of-cell regime, the MOJ need only ask each prison to report that data to it. As the data is about the time out of cell  rather than the individual schedules of prisoners, it will be much simpler to collect than the Ministry pretends. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. I am sure that he will, when he responds, deal with that point in more detail.
A couple of weeks ago at Justice questions, I also asked about the overcrowded conditions in prisons. That data is held and published by the Government, but I do not think it is an accurate representation of what is and is not an overcrowded prison. For example, when I visited Wormwood Scrubs, the governor told me that she had just been asked by the MOJ to increase operational capacity. How will we ever know if a prison is overcrowded if the MOJ keeps moving the goalposts of operational capacity? If the MOJ keeps asking prisons to increase operational capacity, overcrowding will become an even bigger problem, as well as something of a hidden one.
Prisons are overcrowded, single cells are being used to house two people, and most time-out-of-cell regimes are oppressively restrictive. What necessitates much of that is an insufficient number of staff on the wings. Prisons need more staff, but they cannot hire more staff if their budget does not allow it. Prison officers are leaving the profession in their droves, and it is not hard to see why. It is a very dangerous job; prison officers are at very real risk of physical injury. It is also emotionally taxing seeing prisoners at some of the lowest points in their lives, and getting very little assistance by way of productive work, education and other support. The pay does not do the job justice, and is proof that the MOJ has insufficient regard for the profession. It wastes thousands of pounds training new prison officers who then leave within the first two years due to the conditions. It is clear that something is going very wrong, and the Government need to fix the problem.

Conor McGinn: As well as prison officers, will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to prison chaplains, particularly at his local prison of Wormwood Scrubs, where Father Gerry McFlynn was the chaplain for a long time? He is now the director of the Irish Council for Prisoners Overseas; my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will know him. Father Gerry celebrated his golden jubilee just last week—he is 50 years an ordained priest, and has dedicated his whole life to prisons and prison chaplaincy. I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in sending his regards to Father Gerry, as will all Members.

Andrew Slaughter: I am very glad to have taken that intervention. I agree that prison chaplains, prison priests, prison vicars and prison imams—we have an excellent imam at the Scrubs—are in many ways unsung heroes, doing a fantastic job alongside the other staff.
I am afraid that often the problem is the MOJ itself, which is seemingly always one of the first Government Departments to offer itself up as soon as the Chancellor of the day mentions cuts. I think its budget is now 12% lower than it was in 2010. If prisons do not have the staff to unlock the prison safely for a reasonable period of time, do not have the money to provide meaningful activities and do not have the resources to provide good-quality education, mental health declines, and that can have tragic consequences for prisoners and staff.
I will come back to the issue of education in a moment, but I will briefly mention mental wellbeing in prisons. I recently met a lawyer who has been representing four bereaved families of prisoners from Wormwood Scrubs who took their own lives. Between April 2020 and February this year, there have been seven self-inflicted deaths at the Scrubs. The pain for the families must be unimaginable, and I am sure that other prisoners and the staff who found the deceased are also struggling. Any self-harm death in a prison is a potentially preventable one that deserves a rapid response to work out what went wrong and to implement learning for the future, but not one of those cases has yet made it to an inquest. An inquest for one of the families is scheduled for August this year, but that is over three years of waiting for answers.
We rightly talk a lot about the court backlog, but maybe not enough attention is paid to the coroner’s court backlog. According to coroner statistics for 2022, the average time from the date of death to the conclusion of an inquest is 30 weeks, but it is a postcode lottery; I think the worst case was at North Lincolnshire and Grimsby, where the wait was 72 weeks. One of the important outcomes of inquests is often the prevention of future deaths report. If an institution such as Wormwood Scrubs is waiting over three years for an inquest into the death of a prisoner and there is crucial learning that a coroner could uncover, how can that prison be expected to make the necessary changes? When the coroner does provide recommendations in their prevention of future deaths report, how do we know that public bodies will implement them?
I recently spoke on a panel for a campaign launched by the charity Inquest, which is asking the Government to implement a national oversight mechanism. The mechanism would collate recommendations from inquests and prevention of future deaths reports, along with the public body response, in a database. It would then analyse these responses, and produce a report. Finally, the mechanism could allow a follow-up procedure to check on the progress of implementing changes arising from the original recommendations. This sounds like a sensible and not expensive approach, and one that could help to lower the number of preventable deaths, if recommendations became centralised and easy to follow up. I am grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), has offered to meet me and Inquest to discuss this, and I hope to hear from him soon. I realise that deaths in custody and deaths in prison are only one part of the equation, but they are an extremely important part.
I want to finish by coming back to education in prisons, In my recent meeting with the governor at Wormwood Scrubs, she explained that individual prisons have little control over their education services. The MOJ employs education providers in the Prison Service, but the quality of these providers can vary greatly from prison to prison. The governor says that she is unable to change the provider, because it has a contract with the MOJ for a number of prisons. That is only one example, but I think it is typical of the disconnect and neglect that is apparent.
I mentioned local and remand prisons. These are often the oldest, Victorian prisons and those in the worst condition. The Government boast—I am not sure why—that they are on this massive prison expansion programme and putting huge sums of money into new prisons. However, that is not to renew the prison estate, but because of the increase in population. I urge the Minister to look at the way that some of our older prisons are being run. They do a disservice not only to the people who work there and run them, as well as of course to the inmates, but to the wider community, because people are not being rehabilitated and are coming out of prison insufficiently supported and going back into prison very quickly. That is a recipe for disaster not only for the individual but for society as a whole, and it is an indictment of the failure of the prison system under this Government.

Caroline Nokes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who made some really interesting points about the collection of data both in the MOJ and in prisons, and the ability that gives us as parliamentarians to hold to account, scrutinise and understand better what is happening in our prisons and the impact that that is having, as the hon. Gentleman finished by saying, on wider society. I want to pick up on a very specific element of that, which is the impact that it is having on families.
I was very privileged last week to host an event in this place on behalf of my constituent Professor Jane Payler, who has carried out a two-year research project on the impact of prison sentences on the families of offenders. In particular, she highlights the work of Families First, which is a Worcestershire project. One could reasonably question why I was looking at Worcestershire when I very clearly represent Hampshire, but this is in fact an Open University project, led by my constituent, to scrutinise the impact of prison sentences on the children and families of offenders and what we know about that.
The answer comes back, sadly, that we know far too little, because at no point is there any coherent, strategic collection of data that gives us any indication of how many children prisoners may have, and therefore of how many children in wider society may need additional support because they are missing a parent. It is not just that the parent is absent; the children are also coping with the stigma and shame of the fact that their parent—usually their father, although not in every case—is imprisoned. There can be a reluctance on the part of the prisoner to volunteer the information that they have children, because there is a fear that those children will then have an involvement with social services that the mother—I say mother, and I am generalising, but it is usually the mother—may well not want, and there is a fear that that could result in even more adverse outcomes for the children.
I am prepared to concede that in comparison with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, I know little about this subject, and I am not an expert by a long way. What struck me instantly, however, was that today is an opportunity to raise with the Minister the importance of our improving our understanding and discourse around the impact of prison, and  understanding what the MOJ, and indeed the Minister, could do to improve the situation, so that there is at least some collection of this data and we know about the numbers. Estimates of the children impacted vary wildly. We can find one estimate back in 2009 of perhaps 90,000 children impacted, and if we extrapolate the numbers for the increase in the prison population we might expect that number to be in the region of 120,000 or 130,000 children now. Some academic research, relying on French data, indicates that the problem could extend to as many as 300,000 children who are impacted by parental imprisonment.
What do we know of those children? First, we know far too little, but we do know that there are considerable problems with their emotional and mental wellbeing. We know there are considerable problems with the physical impact of a child potentially being moved around the country because they are missing a parent, and the changes that there may be in schools. We know that such children have poorer educational outcomes, and that they and their families are largely forgotten, unseen, and impacted as a result of that. We know there is a lack of holistic and tailored support for those children. We know about secondary prisonisation—I am not convinced that it is a word, but we will go with it for the time being—and that there is an impact on their mental health because of the stigma and shame that they feel. Children lack an understanding of what has happened to their parent, and many are assuming caring responsibilities that that absent parent may have.
We heard from the hon. Member for Hammersmith commentary on the impact that criminal behaviour can have on young people who have previously witnessed criminality, and in far too many instances the young person may step into the void caused by a father or parent going into prison. However, we cannot access up-to-date data, and the number of children impacted is simply not recorded. Freedom of information requests to the MOJ have indicated that such data is not in an extractable format, so even if it has been collected, we cannot necessarily extract it within the cost parameters that are often used.
I have one request, which I think is on quite a short list this afternoon. I thought at one point that I could perhaps stand up and make a cheeky little intervention, but I could see five minutes in that this request clearly could not be made in an intervention without testing your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker. My request is to the MOJ: please find a mechanism whereby that data can be recorded and shared with those services that are in a position to support those children, whether that is local authorities, or the excellent charity sector, just as we had with Families First in Worcestershire. It has worked incredibly hard to ensure that such support is provided to children with, I must say, some really striking outcomes.
The report, which I will send to the Minister after the debate, contains heart-warming stories of the difference that has been made to children when there has been intervention and they have been given support. Also crucial has been the difference that such support has made to parents coming out of prison; having conversations with their children who have articulated the impact on them, which has convinced their dad that the last place he ever wishes to return is prison.
Given that I have this opportunity and few other Members wish to contribute—I have plenty of time—it would be remiss of me not to raise two other issues  regarding the MOJ that are of concern to me. The hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) is no longer in his place, but he raised the important point that prison should be used as a mechanism to keep us, wider society, safe from people who are dangerous. I recently met two incredible women, Carole Goulde and Julie Devey, who both tragically lost their daughters in domestic homicides. They have lobbied long and hard for there to be a review of sentencing. They have welcomed the fact that the eminent KC Clare Wade has done her review into domestic homicide sentencing, but it would be remiss of me not to use this opportunity to reiterate their calls about the fact that “overkill”—a horrific and graphic term for where people, all too often women, are murdered in a frenzy by someone they may have recently been in a relationship with, or still are—still does not carry a mandatory 25 years. We need to be protected from the truly dangerous individuals who abuse women and murder their own partners. I would argue they are among the most dangerous people we can encounter.
I know that the Government’s response to the Wade review is due imminently. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister discuss that with the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), to make sure that that Government response is not snuck out on the last day of term? It would be most helpful if Members had the opportunity to have time in this House—perhaps an oral statement or an urgent question the following day—to discuss what we think of the Government’s response to the Wade review. As I said, these are among the most horrific crimes, and it is important that this House is given the opportunity to debate that review in due course.
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Chair of the Select Committee, who has led this debate and highlighted his expertise in this area.

John Martin McDonnell: I pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who gave a comprehensive overview of what is happening on prisons and probation. I am so pleased that the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) raised the issue of children. When we had the debate on imprisonment for public protection sentences, it focused on the fact that the whole family is serving the sentence and we do not give enough consideration to the implications for the family, and particularly to the support needed to assist the rehabilitation of prisoners as they are released.
I will declare an interest, as I am an honorary life member of the Prison Officers Association. There is no financial interest, and in fact I am told by the POA that it does not even gain me an extra pillow in a cell if I ever need it. It is as simple as that. We have had discussions over recent months—in particular a presentation in the Jubilee Room a few weeks ago, which a number of us attended—where we have been meeting prison officers working on the frontline. I want to report the conversations we have had and, on their behalf, set out some of the concerns they have expressed, which build  much upon what my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said about the state of prisons.
There are three messages that prison officers want to get across. The first is that the austerity Budgets have taken so much from the Prison Service over the past decade that prison officers have left the system. It can only be described as being in crisis, and that is not just putting prisoners and prison officers at risk but putting the public at risk of dangerous reoffending. The second message is that Ministers need to understand that they cannot run prisons on the cheap. It requires investment, particularly in staffing, to ensure safe, secure and purposeful regimes. The third message, which the Chair of the Select Committee has raised and which I will come back to, is that prison officers want the Minister to know that they are fed up. Morale is at an all-time low, and it is developing into real anger at how they have been treated. To give one quote, they felt like they were “disposable commodities” to be “worked to the bone” and then discarded. They are voting with their feet to leave the service.
Mention has been made of the budget cuts that have taken place over the years and how we have arrived at this situation. To give one statistic, at one point at the height of austerity after 2010, the Prison Service saw a 30% cut in overall expenditure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has said, the figure is still 12% below what it was in 2010. Alongside that, we have had a number of fairly disastrous privatisation experiments—those have not just been in probation, but in the maintenance of the prisons themselves.
What happened in the first years of austerity was startling. In the early-2010s, a quarter of the operational workforce was laid off, and a crisis of violence was unleashed. Having laid so many staff off, we also got into a vicious downward spiral of insufficient staff and increasing violence, and therefore problems with retention. Recruitment drives simply failed to resolve the situation.
On one estimate, during that period we lost 100,000 years of professional experience built up over decades. As a result of that, exactly as has been said, prisons are fearful places with prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and assaults on staff, which have soared, so prison officers and support staff are leaving in droves. We have heard some of the statistics. Mark Fairhurst, the POA national chair, presented evidence to the Justice Committee, where he explained, just as my hon. Friend did, that many leave
“within the first two years”.
He said:
“We are at the highest attrition rate that the service has ever seen. We are currently running at 16% for prison officers and 19% for operational support grades. Some areas of the country have seen attrition rates of between 35% and 45%.”
The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned the survey of how prison officers are feeling. Exactly as he said, half of those surveyed do not feel safe at work and 80% said that staff morale at their establishments was bad. When we talk to officers at some establishments, they tell us that it has collapsed completely. Many have a lack of confidence in the future.
It was also raised with us in conversations that the number of prison officers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder is rising and at critical levels. Serving and  ex-prison officers receive little support for PSTD, and it has an overwhelming impact on their lives. It is unfortunately becoming almost accepted as the norm that prison officers will have to go through that. Mark Fairhurst told the Committee:
“There is no support if you have mental health problems. More and more of my members are getting diagnosed with PTSD, because of the trauma that they deal with and the things they see. There is no mental health support on site for those staff. They are leaving the job with ill health or capability retirement, so there is no support there for mental health.”
This is one of his most startling statements:
“We have come across scenarios in some jails where the most experienced member of staff on that same wing has nine months in the job. It is the blind leading the blind.”
To try to give us an understanding of what that meant, he said:
“When you have inexperienced staff dealing with experienced prisoners who have been in and out of prison all their lives, it has a massive knock-on effect on stability.”
Spending during the first five years of austerity fell by 20%. That is why, as has been said, with spending levels cut so dramatically over a period, it is hard for prison officers to fully comprehend why £4 billion is being spent on building a new generation of prisons to boost capacity when our existing prisons have become mired in squalor—that is the description used—and, according to the Public Accounts Committee only two years ago, there was a £1 billion backlog of work needing to be done.
Prisons are violent places. We have, at times, reached catastrophic levels of violence. It needs to be acknowledged—not to accept that it will continue—that violence is part and parcel of prison life. Prisoner officers cannot understand that the Government will not even include levels of violence in their new key performance indicators for prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) introduced a private Member’s Bill in the last Session—the Prisons (Violence) Bill. We urged parliamentarians to support it to enable that sort of monitoring to be part and parcel of the performance indicators, so that the Government could develop a full strategy.
The POA has joined, as a founding member, the Joint Unions in Prison Alliance, alongside the other unions and working with the Prison Service. It fully supports the Safe Inside campaign to reduce violence in prisons. It is especially concerned about what it described as the “ultra-violence” in the youth custody estate. It warns that an urgent review is needed of the protections that prison officers need when working in that estate. It comes back to investment. The POA also said:
“Dangerous, squalid jails…make rehabilitation impossible. Prisoners are released more criminalised, more traumatised, more addicted to drugs than when they arrived. This is madness and should be completely unacceptable in a civilised society. Prisons are often the best chance that state has to turn someone’s life around, whether through education or treatment, but we’re doing the opposite—we’re making them worse.”
The POA has reached such a state of frustration that it is calling for a royal commission. I believe that was one of the proposals considered by the Conservative party before the last election. A royal commission should examine the problems in our justice system from end to end, to try to tackle imprisonment, incarceration and, more importantly, rehabilitation and, as other hon. Members have said, to look at preventing crime and preventing people reaching imprisonment.
The POA wants to raise clearly what has happened on pay and on retirement age. On pay, the unions welcome the Government’s increase in early starters’ pay, but are concerned about recent statements from the Government about not honouring the pay review rewards in future. Nothing will undermine morale more. When there is an independent assessment of pay, the POA is not allowed to take industrial action like other unions, and therefore has to rely on the pay review bodies. That the Government say they will not honour those recommendations is utterly defeating when prisons are seeking to recruit and retain.
The POA has made it clear time and again that it believes that a pension age of 68 is unacceptable for the physical job that prisoner officers undertake. It would welcome the Government returning to the negotiating table on retirement age, which they walked away from in 2016 after the POA rejected the offer to reduce retirement age. Those negotiations need to be reopened, because 68 is too late.
I have tried to give some understanding of what prison officers are going through at the moment. They ask straightforward questions: what happened to the Conservative party’s commitment and pledge of a royal commission on criminal justice? Will the Minister bring back those proposals? Will he commit to investing the resources, especially in staffing, that are needed to save the system from the current crisis? Will he look to improve workforce morale and retention by looking again at the issues of pay, terms and conditions, and the pension age, which is currently threatened? The final issue they want to draw attention to is the fact that there needs to be a clearer programme to reduce prison violence, ensuring there is sufficient support for prison staff so that they can perform their professional jobs without risk to their lives and limbs.

Ellie Reeves: I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, for speaking so persuasively, as always, on these incredibly important issues.
Our prison and probation services do vital work to deliver justice, rehabilitate offenders and protect the public, but sadly, after 13 years of Tory neglect, they are broken: judges are being told to jail fewer people because our prisons are full; no prisons are rated as good for rehabilitation and release planning; and one murder every week is committed by criminals out on probation. It is hard to separate that declining performance from the cuts faced by the Ministry of Justice. Even a former Tory Prisons Minister recently declared that they went too far. But with what scarce resources are left, we continue to see incompetence: £1 million spent on maintaining closed prisons; £98 million wasted on avoidable mistakes on a new tagging programme; and an estimated works backlog on the prison estate of £1 billion.
When I visit prisons, I see at first hand overcrowded crumbling estates blighted by staff shortages. Last year, I visited Wandsworth prison, where inmates were locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day. While I was there, I met two prisoners who had jobs as prison cleaners. They said that in the dilapidated and run-down wings, pigeon mess created most of their work. They told me that they considered themselves lucky, as their roles as  cleaners meant that both of them got to be out of their cells for around three hours a day. They explained that come the afternoon the smell of drugs in the wing is overwhelming, as prisoners use them out of boredom without fear of consequence. While there, I saw a library staffed by some passionate librarians, but there were no prisoners there. It was completely empty, because there were no available staff to move the men across the prison. I saw rooms set up for training, including opportunities for inmates to gain qualifications in skills such as dry lining. Again, they were not being used for the same reasons.
That is hardly surprising, given that prison staff have been leaving in droves. Since 2010, over 100,000 years of cumulative prison officer experience has been lost, leaving wings to be managed by smaller, less experienced teams. As a consequence, violence against staff is up by 165%. Apart from the impact that staff turnover has on the running of prisons, it also has a devastating impact on the public purse. It costs £13,000 to recruit and train a prison officer, yet one quarter of officers leave within a year of taking up the role. Why? Because under this Government being a prison officer is no longer considered a vocation. Instead, it is often just a stepping stone to move into less dangerous, more lucrative work. One thing that the Government could do tomorrow to improve retention would be to give prison governors a say over who they recruit. Currently, they do not as they have no role on interview panels for new recruits. That would be an important step in getting a best fit for their prison, but it is an opportunity that is being missed.
The same goes for procurement. If a governor wants to buy goods for a prison, they have to go through the approved Ministry of Justice supplier. Now, there is an obvious security need here, but the system would seem to be beset by delays and huge cost inefficiencies. At Wandsworth, the new governor told me she needed a new screen for their office to conduct Zoom meetings on. It took weeks to arrive, and the exact same screen was available from Argos to be delivered the next day, and it was cheaper. When I visited Leeds Prison, staff there said that they wanted to procure some wood to make raised flowerbeds for one of their rehabilitation projects. Timber from the approved supplier cost three times as much as the amount quoted by the local timber merchant. Those savings could have been made. When I visited HMP Styal, one of the house units had just been renovated: that consisted of new windows, an alarm system and a basic refurbishment. Using the approved supplier cost just under £12 million, which seemed far out of step with the work required. I strongly urge the Government to look into this issue, as it seems that there is a potential for huge savings and efficiencies—as well as the opportunity to build links between prisons and local businesses, which could provide a path towards collaboration and post-release employment.
In 2021 the Government committed more than £500 million to work and skills reform in prisons, to improve employment rates post release. Two years on, however, the probation inspectorate has found that just 8% of those available for work went into employment upon release. When classrooms remain empty, access to libraries is limited and inmates are locked in their cells for 23 hours a day, how can we be surprised when prisoners, who have had no intervention and no opportunity  to learn anything new, leave and reoffend? Moreover, the effects of this are costing the taxpayer £18 billion a year.
Cutting reoffending has to be an absolute priority, but in the current overcrowded, understaffed conditions, prisons are little more than colleges of crime. Since 2015, the Government have repeatedly announced plans to build new jails and increase capacity, but in the last 10 years they have closed nearly 3,200 places, and three new prisons that were planned will not open until 2027 at the earliest. An internal Ministry of Justice memo published in June stated that even if all prison building targets were met, there would be a shortfall of 2,300 places by March 2025. Overcrowding is already having a detrimental effect on conditions and the daily prison regime. Last month the chief inspector of prisons inspected HMP Pentonville, which was originally designed to hold 520 men. Today it holds more than 1,000. How can rehabilitation take place in these conditions? It is just more evidence of a failure to get a grip of our justice system.
The fact that little or no rehabilitative work is being done in prisons is making it even harder for probation officers to do their job. When I speak to them, they tell me that what they long for is to be able to do their job properly, but case loads are simply unmanageable. Officers are having to prioritise paperwork and databases instead of spending proper time with the people they supervise. Under Labour, probation was a well-regarded service, but this Government’s ill-conceived part-privatisation wreaked havoc on the service and caused a mass exodus of experienced staff. In total, these reforms cost half a billion pounds, and they left the public at greater risk from offenders because the work was often reduced to a tick-box exercise.
What was the result? Between 2014 and 2019, during the privatisation years, the number of serious further offence convictions increased by more than a third, and the number of serious offenders on probation found guilty of murder increased by 123%. The service has rightly reunified now, but the huge organisational changes, the staff exodus and the vast sums wasted on privatisation mean that probation is on its knees. Today only one local service has received a good report, and in December the vacancy rate was 29%.
These shortages and high case loads are leaving the public at risk. Just this morning, the probation inspectorate found that only 28% of domestic abuse offenders on probation were being sufficiently assessed for any risk of further domestic abuse. Nearly half should have had access to an intervention such as a group programme or a one-to-one meeting with a probation officer to reduce the risk of a further offence, but that had not happened. In nearly 75% of cases, significant changes such as moving in with a partner, altered child protection plans or a partner becoming pregnant are not being adequately reviewed or reassessed.
All the above failures in probation have caused judges to lose confidence in community sentences, meaning offenders who should be eligible for them are being sent to overcrowded prisons instead. Last year I visited a community payback scheme in my constituency where those on unpaid work were helping to maintain a community play space, which without them probably  would have closed. They all, without exception, spoke with pride about doing work of value and having the opportunity to learn new skills. It showed just what can be achieved, but these schemes are patchy and the use of community sentences has more than halved under the Tories despite the clear benefit when they work effectively.
We need to look at how probation can be delivered as an effective local service. Labour would begin to do that by creating a system of community and victim payback boards to strengthen community and victim involvement in sentencing. Under those boards, local people and victims of crime will have a say in deciding what unpaid work offenders must undertake.
Rather than getting to grips with those issues, the Government are currently restructuring probation via the One HMPPS plan. I really hope they will take seriously the concerns raised by the sector and the findings from the damning inspection reports. Funding needs to be channelled to frontline officers, not the bureaucratic layers of organisation above them. That is the only way to reduce the burden they face and ensure they can give proper time and attention to those they supervise. Their inability to do this because of failed Tory reforms has meant that, on average, there have been six serious further offence convictions every week since 2010, including for murder, kidnap and rape.
We have had 11 Justice Secretaries and 13 Prisons Ministers in the last 13 years, so it is no wonder that the system is in crisis. They are never in post long enough to get to grips with the issues, to take responsibility for their spending and be held accountable, or to set a long-term strategy and ensure stability. No wonder the service is stuck lurching from one crisis to the next when that is exactly what is happening in its political leadership. If we are to fix that, we need continuity at the top. We need stable management that delivers a proper plan for prisons and probation, instead of rehashed announcements and gimmicks, and we need leadership that is laser-focused on reducing waste, driving efficiency and cutting reoffending. The Tories have had 13 years to deliver that, and they have failed.

Damian Hinds: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, for his opening remarks and, more broadly, for securing this important debate on this estimates day. I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate.
There can be no higher purpose for a Government than protecting the public from the devastating consequences of crime and maintaining a criminal justice system in which people have confidence. We have honoured our manifesto commitment to recruit 20,000 additional police officers and, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, we have introduced tougher penalties for the most serious crimes and removed automatic halfway release of the most violent and sexual offenders so that the worst criminals are locked up for longer. We are building new state-of-the-art prisons that will not only give effect to the order of the court to take criminals off our street, but properly rehabilitate them so that they turn their backs on crime for good. That way, we can break the destructive cycle of offending that costs  the taxpayer £18 billion a year and has an incalculable personal cost to the victims and communities blighted by it.
The PCSC Act also brought in better monitored and more effective community sentences, which were just mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves). They punish offenders, tackle the underlying drivers of offending and support people who want to turn their lives around. Those measures include tougher and more flexible electronically monitored curfews. We aim to almost double the number of defendants and offenders tagged at any one time to reach 25,000 by March 2025.
We have recruited more than 50 new health and justice co-ordinators, who will cover every probation region and work with health partners so that offenders get the right treatment to stay on the straight and narrow. That will be underpinned by regular drug testing to monitor compliance. We are investing up to £93 million in community payback to drive up the hours of unpaid work done by offenders, so that they visibly pay their debt to society for the damage they have done.
We are achieving our vision to cut the youth custodial population, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Roughly 3,000 children and young people were in custody in 2008-09; as of April this year, the number had fallen to around 600. It is also important to note that, in line with our female offender strategy, between 2018 and 2021, the average female prison population fell by 17%.
Our £100 million security investment programme to reduce crime inside prisons, including stemming the flow of illicit items such as drugs, mobile phones and weapons, was completed in March 2022. Enhanced gate security—including 659 staff, 154 drug dogs and over 200 pieces of equipment—has been deployed to 42 high-risk prison sites that routinely search staff and visitors. We now have 97 X-ray body scanners covering the entire closed male estate and they have recorded more than 28,000 positive indications.
To date, 89 prisons have completed their roll-out of PAVA synthetic pepper spray to stop violent prisoners in their tracks and we have introduced 13,000 new generation body-worn video cameras across the estate, with networked, cloud-based technology. These important investments rightly underpin our focus on the safety of staff and others in prison.
Linked to that, we need prisons to be a place where offenders overcome addiction, which is why we are rolling out abstinence-focused drug recovery wings and increasing the number of dedicated, incentivised substance-free living units across the estate, where prisoners commit to regular drug tests in return for incentives such as more gym time.
Alongside safety and security in prisons, we must invest in education and employment if we are to cut crime sustainably. We know that, if a prisoner can hold down a steady job, it reduces their chance of reoffending by up to nine percentage points, which is why we are driving forward initiatives to help prisoners to secure jobs on release, including through prison employment leads to match prisoners to jobs and employment advisory boards to build links between prisons and local industry, and to ensure that the skills being taught in prisons align with what is demanded and required in the local labour market.
I agree that we need to go further on education. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) spoke about the Shannon Trust and I pay tribute to its work. I confirm that we are extending what we do with the literacy innovation fund across 15 prisons. There is also a much sharper understanding of neurodiversity in our prison population, and I am pleased that we will have neurodiversity support managers across the estate by January 2024. I am also excited about the prospect of the first secure school, which we will be doing in partnership with the Oasis Trust. It is a different approach from those in youth custody, further elevating the role of education.
Ensuring proper support is on offer beyond the prison gates is also crucial if we are to help offenders stay on the straight and narrow, so we are improving pre-release planning and continuity of care. We want to ensure that no one supervised by probation is released from prison homeless. Our new transitional accommodation scheme—community accommodation service tier 3, so below the level of bail hostels—helps us to deliver on that commitment. It was initially delivered in five probation regions in 2021, but our investment is expanding to operate across all of England and Wales by April 2024.
We are also investing in pre-release teams, which have been embedded in 67 prisons and provide an important interface for commissioned rehabilitative services that help ex-prisoners with accommodation, personal wellbeing, employment, training and education. To improve continuity of care for prison leavers with substance misuse or wider health issues, we are recruiting more than 50 health and justice co-ordinators with responsibility for ensuring more joined-up support between prison, probation and healthcare treatment services. Where appropriate, alcohol monitoring on licence is available.
Small things that the rest of us can take for granted can make all the difference, for good or ill. That is why we have introduced resettlement passports, set up ahead of release, to bring together the essentials that offenders need in one place: bank accounts, CVs and the identification people need to prove the right to work and to rent a flat. We have also supported the Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Act 2023, which recently received Royal Assent, having started out as a private Member’s Bill. It will enable offenders at risk of reoffending to be released up to two days earlier, to avoid what can be the hectic rush of trying to get round different services on a Friday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked specifically about magistrates’ sentencing powers. Given the time, I should not talk about that in great detail now. We have had a chance to talk about it in the Select Committee. On his specific question about working with the judiciary, we are working with the Judicial Office as part of the review we are undertaking on the changes and plan to engage magistrates on it. We should have completed that review by the autumn.
My hon. Friend and others rightly asked about capacity, the role of Operation Safeguard and other shorter-term capacity measures, as well as the longer-term capital programme. Since October 2022, we have seen an acute and exceptional rise in the prison population. Operation Safeguard is a temporary measure to provide a short-term solution to that acute rise in demand. He asked how much of that capacity has been used. The answer is that it goes up and down; it is a facility to be drawn on as  needed. The average over the period is really quite low, but there are days when its usage is greater. Standing it up has provided us with vital extra short-term resilience as we develop further that longer-term capital programme.
As of April, we had invested £1.3 billion in capital towards the delivery of the 20,000 additional, modern prison places to which my hon. Friend referred. By the end of June, about 5,400 of those places had been added to the estate. That includes the two new 1,700-place prisons, HMPs Five Wells and Fosse Way, with the latter having accepted its first prisoners at the end of May.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for that update. Those who have been to Five Wells and Fosse Way recognise what an advance they are in design and facilities. Will he give us a specific update on where we are in the stalled planning process on the other three prisons, which are still stuck in the system? When are we likely to get those moving forward?

Damian Hinds: As my hon. Friend well knows—he was previously a leading light in ministerial office, dealing with local government—we do not control the planning process. I am therefore not in a position to give him a bang-up-to-date update, except to say that those three projects remain part of our plan. Overall, this is a complex capital programme and we need to deal with external factors, including working through the planning process.

Bob Neill: Perhaps the Minister could write to me and the Select Committee to set out where we are with those projects. Have they gone to appeal yet? If so, has any indication been given as to when the hearings will take place?

Damian Hinds: Of course, I will be delighted to correspond in that way with my hon. Friend.
We are also rolling out 1,000 rapid deployment cells across the estate. The first three sites, HMPs Norwich, Wymott and Hollesley Bay, are now accepting prisoners, and the majority of the 1,000 additional places will  be delivered this year. We are undertaking major refurbishments at sites including HMPs Birmingham, Liverpool and Norwich, delivering about 800 cells between them. The wing-by-wing refurbishment at HMP Liverpool will see every cell renovated. Construction has also started on new house blocks at HMPs Stocken, Hatfield, Sudbury and Rye Hill, which will add around 850 places between them. HMP Millsike, the new prison of some 1,500 places by HMP Full Sutton, will open in 2025. Our new prisons have a laser-sharp focus on rehabilitation, with workshops and cutting-edge technology that puts education, training and jobs front and centre, so every prisoner gets the right opportunity to turn over a new leaf.
Like many, or most, workforces, the Prison Service has experienced recruitment and retention challenges at a time of very low unemployment. Ensuring our services are sufficiently resourced and that we retain levels of   experience are fundamental for delivering quality outcomes. That is why we are targeting the drivers of staff attrition and taking steps to improve recruitment, alongside a wider agenda of development in the workforce.
We welcome the Justice Committee’s important inquiry into the prison operational workforce and we have worked closely with the Committee to provide evidence. We are now closely considering the survey of prison staff, and I reaffirm that we take the issues of the morale and safety of staff with the greatest gravity. Prison staff do incredible work and, so often, are the hidden heroes of our justice system and society. In every prison I have visited, their dedication and drive are clear to see.
We fund a range of services to support staff wellbeing, which include care teams in public sector prisons that are trained to provide support to any member of staff involved in an incident at work. We are committed to making sure our prison staff feel safe, supported and valued, and we look forward to receiving the Committee’s full report and recommendations in due course.
The 2022-23 prison staff pay award was announced in July 2022. It represented a significant investment in the workforce. Alongside an increase in base pay of at least 4% for all staff between bands 2 and 11, we targeted further pay rises for our lowest-paid staff of up to £3,000.
The probation service is in its second year of a multi-year pay deal for staff. Salary values of all pay bands will increase each year, targeted at key operational grades to improve what has been a challenging recruitment and retention position. The pay increases differ for different job roles, but to provide an example, probation officers will see their starting salary rise from around £30,200 in 2021-22 to a little over £35,000 by 2024-25.
Let me respond briefly to some of the individual points made by colleagues during the debate. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) asked about crowding in prisons. The most recent statistics show crowding at 20.6% in the estate; by way of comparison, in 2009, that figure was 25.3%.
My near neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), raised the horrific crime of overkill. I have heard what she says and I will pass on those points within the Department.
I commend the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for his close association and work with the Prison Officers Association. I confirm that I will continue to look forward to speaking with the Prison Officers Association and other staff bodies throughout the Prison and Probation Service. He was right to identify the centrality of safety and security in people’s experience of work. I reassure him that we measure those things centrally through the key performance indicators that we have in prisons.
Multiple Members rightly talked about rehabilitation. Specifically on the question about education providers asked by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, it is true that there are four education providers contracted to provide education services through the prison system. However, there is also a flexible fund that enables individual governors to draw down funds to make supplementary provision in certain ways. It is important that we get a blend—that we are able to respond to local conditions   and the specifics of a prison population, and have some commonality in the provision and in the qualification studies.

Andrew Slaughter: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Damian Hinds: I am sorry, but I think that I might be starting to stretch Mr Deputy Speaker’s patience. I will be happy to follow up with the hon. Gentleman separately if he would like to do so as an alternative.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North talked, quite rightly, about the impact on families. That works in both directions—the effect on the children and what can be an adverse childhood experience, and the effect on the prisoner. Then there is the importance of having family time and family support, and the difference that that can make on release. I pay tribute to Lord Farmer for the work that he has done in that area. We have done some work on improving the maintenance of family ties, but I bring here today the good news that we are working on some data-linking in order to understand the extent and nature of these issues more closely.
We know overall that the efforts of our dedicated staff are working. The proportion of prison leavers in employment six months after release has more than doubled in the two years to March 2023, from 14% to more than 30%. Since 2010, the overall reoffending rate has decreased from 31.6% to 24.4%. As of February 2023, our transitional accommodation service had supported more than 5,000 prison leavers who would otherwise have been homeless across the initial five regions. Of course, there is still a huge amount more to do, but it is clear that we are making significant and important progress. The Government will always value and invest in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Our prisons must be and will be a safe place in which to work, where staff are provided with the right support, the training and the tools to empower them to do their jobs. I look forward to a continued dialogue on this matter with the Committee and others beyond this debate and the report.
In closing, let me repeat my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for securing the debate, and to all who have contributed today. I commend the estimates to the House.

Nigel Evans: The final brief word goes to Sir Robert Neill.

Bob Neill: I am very grateful to all who have taken part in this important and valuable debate. I just wish more people had been here to hear it, but I hope that they will read at least some of what was said, because the issues raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House are important. They include the condition of prisons, and the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on the legitimate concerns of the staff in our prisons, which should not be ignored. The points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) about families are also critical. I, too, look forward to the report of the Wade review.
There are positive things happening and there were positive suggestions from both Front-Bench teams. In some ways, we should try to find a more consensual approach to some issues of prison policy, because to put it right will require an approach that will span the lifetime of more than one Parliament. It is an important challenge, and I am grateful for the time for this debate today.
Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54).

Women and Equalities Committee

Nigel Evans: I call Sir Bill Wiggin to move the motion on behalf of the Committee of Selection.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move,
That Dr Jamie Wallis be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Lia Nici be added.
I believe that I have until 7 o’clock this evening, so I have a few words to say. [Laughter.] I was hoping for a collective groan from SNP Members. [Hon. Members: “Groan!”] Thank you.
I will, if I may, adapt a quote from Winnie Ewing, “Stop the speech, Scotland wants to get on”. I shall leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.

Winnie Ewing

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Ian Blackford: Here we are, just coming up to 4.50 pm on Tuesday afternoon. If I reflect back on the time that our dear friend and colleague Winnie Ewing was in this place, quite often Parliament could be sitting to 2 am, 4 am or even 7 am. If she were here today, I can only begin to think what she would make of it. I am sure my much-missed colleague would be saying, “What a shambles this place is that it cannot conduct its business in a way that allows for timely discharge of events. Doesn’t this show to those of us on the SNP side that Westminster has nothing to say to the people of Scotland? Doesn’t it just suggest that it is about time that Scotland completes its journey to independence?” We do the task that Winnie Ewing set for us: our job was not to come here and to settle down, but to settle up for the people of Scotland.
I am grateful for the opportunity to celebrate the remarkable achievements of Winifred Margaret Ewing. Winnie was elected to this House first for the seat of Hamilton in a by-election in 1967, then for Moray in 1974, when she unseated the then Tory Secretary of State for Scotland. Not only did Winnie serve in this House, but she was elected to the European Parliament as well as to the Scottish Parliament. The fact that she served in three legislatures makes her unique as a Scottish politician.
However, it is not the accomplishment of that electoral record that makes Winnie unique. As our colleague from the 1974 intake, George Reid, said:
“Occasionally, just very occasionally, a person emerges from the murk of daily life with the vision and determination to change things for good, to set the country on a different path. That was Winnie.”
That was Winnie—George was absolutely right about that.
When the Hamilton by-election took place on 2 November 1967, the voters of Hamilton changed the political landscape of Scotland. They changed the history of Scotland. When Winnie emerged from the count that night, she did indeed utter the immortal words:
“Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on.”
Winnie lit a spark that night and the fire from that spark has shone brightly ever since.

Chris Stephens: My right hon. Friend mentions that very famous Hamilton by-election, but there was another, just before Hamilton, that set Scotland on the path: the Glasgow Pollok by-election, in which the SNP candidate was the great George Leslie, who we also lost fairly recently. It goes to show, does it not, that we on these Benches stand on the shoulders of giants?

Ian Blackford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he is so right. With our colleagues in Edinburgh delivering government for the people of Scotland in our Parliament, we have the task of completing that journey to independence, but at a time like this it is right that we pay tribute to those who have gone before.
The Scottish National party was formed in 1934 through the merger of two political parties, the National Party of Scotland, formed in 1928, and the Scottish (Self-Government) party. My goodness, to think of some of the people who had the courage to give their lives to shaping Scotland’s future at that point, we do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants. There are so many to mention. We think of John MacCormick, two of whose sons became parliamentarians—Neil MacCormick in the European Parliament, and Iain MacCormick in this place.
We think of giants such as Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham, a remarkable individual who was a Member of this House. He was elected as a Liberal in Lanarkshire in 1886—although I believe he never formally took the Liberal Whip—then stood as an independent and then became the first president of the Independent Labour party. Like so many, however, he was on a political journey and became the first president of the Scottish National party. He was also very well known in Argentina as a rancher and an accomplished novelist. I tell that story because of the spark of genius in those who formed the movement at that time, in the likes of Compton Mackenzie.
We talk about by-elections, and I will come on to the 1960s. I remind the very few Conservative politicians who are here that we have until 7.30 pm, so they should stick with us—[Interruption.] Go on, smile. You might learn something.

Jim Shannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Blackford: If the hon. Gentleman would bear with me, there is plenty of time. Let us just settle down.
In thinking about those by-elections in the 1960s, as well as talking about George Leslie, we should also think of the likes of Billy Wolfe in West Lothian in the early 1960s. That journey gathered a sense of momentum, and that momentum really sparked into life with Winnie’s success in Hamilton in 1967. I go back, if I may, to the 1935 Midlothian by-election. My own grandfather and his two brothers became members of the SNP in that period. By-elections have been important for the SNP in fulfilling the promise that it had.

Jim Shannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on political journeys?

Ian Blackford: This will be quite a political journey!

Jim Shannon: It will be. May I first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate? He and I spoke earlier. Not many people in this House will know that Winnie Ewing and Dr Paisley were good friends from the European Parliament and had a good relationship. Quite clearly, one was committed to Unionism and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while the other was committed to independence, but that did not in any way inhibit their relationship.
Although Mrs Ewing and I had very different views on Unionism, I much admired her courage, advocacy, passion and desire for her country. Her nickname in Brussels translated to “Mrs Scotland”—a legacy to be proud of. Her advice of “stand your ground” applies to   many of us in politics, myself included. It is a timeless motto not simply for generations of Scots, but for their very proud Ulster Scots cousins in Northern Ireland.

Ian Blackford: I am so grateful to my hon. Friend, if I may refer to him in that way. People should listen to his wise words.
It is worth reflecting on the fact that those of us on these Benches have a passion and commitment. We want to see Scotland become an independent country, but, as we often say, the debate about our country’s future ought to be one of mutual respect. Of course, we understand that there are other traditions, but we all have a responsibility to extend the hand of friendship, as Winnie Ewing did. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talks about the relationship that she had with the Reverend Ian Paisley. I am aware of that relationship, but she also had one with John Hume. Those in Brussels at that time would often see the three of them in conversation—and, indeed, at more social occasions as well, if I may refer to them in that way.
It is important that, when we talk to people externally, we give the message that we are here in this place to stand up for our constituents—and, in our case, to stand up for our country—but that we have no personal animosity towards those on the other side. Those who served with Winnie, whether in this place in Westminster, or, like some on the SNP Benches, in the Scottish Parliament, knew that she always looked out for new Members or younger Members in particular. In the end, the way in which someone comports themselves is important in that regard. Winnie was a shining light and an example to us all.

Philippa Whitford: rose—

Ronnie Cowan: rose—

Ian Blackford: I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford).

Philippa Whitford: Obviously, we are celebrating Winnie as an absolute icon of the Scottish National party and of Scotland, but we need to remember that she was also a woman and a mother. We send the condolences of everyone on these Benches, and of the whole House, to Fergus, Annabelle and Terry.

Ian Blackford: I am very grateful, because that is important. The sense of grief that they will all be feeling from the loss of their mother will be very different from our experiences. We have fantastic memories of Winnie, as so many of us were lucky to spend time with her. It is right that we reflect on all that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire talks about thinking of Winnie as a woman. Let us quickly reflect on that and think about the circumstances for a woman coming to this House in 1967, when it was not that common. It is not just that a woman came to this House in 1967, but that she came here on her own to represent her constituents as the only SNP politician in this place. Quite frankly, the experiences that she had were utterly disgraceful in the main—the misogyny that she faced. I will pay credit to Harold Wilson, who was a friend of hers, but the experiences that she had in this place were absolutely unspeakable.
When we think about where we are, we think about the Scottish Parliament being re-established in 1999 and the SNP going into Government, and I often reflect on those who have driven our movement. We have spoken about being on the shoulders of giants, but for me, there are two people in particular who we owe an enormous debt of gratitude: one is Winnie, and the other is Margo MacDonald, who won the Govan by-election in 1973. As someone who was a teenager in the 1970s, what drove me into the SNP was the leadership of those two people. By goodness, we are so blessed by the leadership, drive, ambition, intelligence, wit, sophistication and glamour that both those women presented themselves with. What fantastic leaders and role models they were for Scotland!

Peter Grant: rose—

Ian Blackford: Speaking of role models.

Hon. Members:: But not of glamour!

Peter Grant: No, certainly not.
My right hon. Friend mentions the wit that we got from Winnie and Margo, and one of the great things about Winnie was that her wicked sense of humour was as often as not turned on herself. If I can give one brief example, when I stood in the 2008 Glenrothes by-election, Winnie did a lot of campaigning, just by going for cups of coffee in places and talking to people. She came into the campaign rooms doubled up with laughter once, because a woman had spotted her and dragged her 12-year-old daughter across the road to meet this legend of Scottish politics. The wee girl said that she knew who Winnie was because she was learning about her in school. Now, Winnie was a lawyer—she should have known that you do not ask a question if you do not know the answer. She said to the wee girl, “You must be doing modern studies, then”, and the wee girl said, “No, history.”

Ian Blackford: Well, indeed: that is a typical Winnie story. The only thing that I could reflect on beyond that is the description of anyone going for a cup of coffee with Winnie. In all the years and decades that I have known her, I have never known anyone going for a cup of coffee with her—an Irish coffee, perhaps.
Since the issue of by-elections has been mentioned, it is probably worth reflecting that many of us were by-election candidates, including my hon. Friend and myself. I stood in Paisley in 1997.

Anum Qaisar: And by-election winners.

Ian Blackford: And winners—from Airdrie more recently. What used to happen was that Winnie Ewing would turn up and assist you for the last few days of the campaign. She was your minder—in my case, she actually replaced Nicola, who had been my minder for most of the campaign. For those who have not experienced it, it really was something to behold, because it was not normal political campaigning, certainly when it got to the evenings. In my case, we did a tour of the pubs of Paisley. As someone who was relatively modest, shy and retiring, it was quite remarkable to see Madame Écosse work the tables, and to be welcomed by everybody and have discussions about political life.
Since we are on the subject and we have time, I remember that on election day, we were in a particular inn in Paisley—Members can probably think of the one I mean. Winnie said, “Let’s get a dram”, and I had to say to her, “Winnie, I’m the candidate”, but I relented and had one. She wanted to buy a second one, and I said, “Come on, not today. I’m the candidate; let’s miss that.” The point of telling that story is the spirit and warmth of the individual. It was an absolute pleasure to spend time in her company. I am glad to say that I became a very good friend to Madame Écosse—to Winnie Ewing. She would come up and spend some time with us in Skye. She was fantastic company.

Ronnie Cowan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Ian Blackford: One second, then I will.

Ronnie Cowan: You said that 15 minutes ago!

Ian Blackford: Well, I recall going to visit her when she was in the Quarriers home in my hon. Friend’s constituency, I believe. I went with a fellow parliamentarian, a colleague of ours from the Scottish Parliament, Colin Campbell. Colin had made the fateful error of phoning the nursing home as we were leaving his house to say that we would be there in a few minutes. The upshot of that was that rather than our going to visit her in the nursing home, there she was at the door with her coat on and her handbag. As we went in, the remark was, “Right, boys, where are we going?” The expectation was that we would be taking her out to a place where we could have some relaxation and entertainment, if I can put it that way.

Ronnie Cowan: There are two links to me there. Colin Campbell was my history teacher when I was at school. [Hon. Members: “Not modern studies?”] No, history. I also had the great privilege of Winnie being a constituent of mine when she was in that nursing home. I was the candidate in 2015, and I got the phone call to go and meet Winnie Ewing, which was quite an experience for me, and she was incredibly generous with her time and her advice. However, a week later Winnie was not feeling so good. It was coming up to the election, and her family phoned me to say that Winnie did not have a postal vote. So I had enormous pleasure, on election day, of taking Winnie Ewing’s ballot paper and voting for myself, which was a proud moment and something that will live with me for the rest of my days.

Ian Blackford: That is a wonderful story, and knowing the woman as I did, I can say to my hon. Friend that nothing would have given Winnie more pride than knowing he had done that.
I remember that 2015 election with some pride in my own interaction with Winnie at that time. Winnie had sent me a video address that I could use in my own election campaign, and it was not short—it was 30 minutes long. [Hon. Members: “The irony!”] Well, I did say that she was my mentor. Some 29 minutes of that 30-minute address was about Europe, so there is a serious point to this. Winnie studied law in Glasgow, but she also went to study in The Hague. She was a Scottish nationalist—from the age of nine—but she was a European and she was  an internationalist. She was so proud of what the European Union had meant for Scotland. She was so proud of the role she had played as a parliamentarian and of the friendships that she had developed with her friends not just from these islands, but right across Europe.
There was the role Winnie Ewing played in the Lomé convention, and in bringing it to Inverness, for goodness’ sake. There was the work she did in establishing the Erasmus programme, which was so inspirational in providing opportunities for our young people. It is therefore not surprising that she would often talk about what the European Union had meant. There are a number of us here from the highlands and islands, and my goodness, how we have benefited from objective 1 status, and the person responsible for that was Winnie Ewing. Think about where we are today—we have to go cap in hand to Westminster for levelling-up money and for what are in effect scraps from the table, as opposed to what was there for us as a right when Scotland and the European Community were working together in partnership. The highlands and islands are full of signs for projects that have been financed by Europe, and that is the legacy of Madame Écosse. Michel Barnier was recently on Skye, and he posted a picture of a path that had been funded by the European Union. What a difference between the spirit of generosity we had from the European Union and what we face in this place.

Angus MacNeil: I am very grateful to the modest, shy and retiring gentleman, my right hon. Friend, for giving way. Earlier, he mentioned Compton Mackenzie, and I think it is worth remembering that Compton Mackenzie, who was buried in my native island—he was a founder of the SNP in 1934—was actually an Englishman, which says a lot about the SNP, despite what many would say.
I had the great fortune during the general election of 2001 to get to know Winnie very well. I stayed with her at Goodwill in Miltonduff on several occasions, and I spent many an hour, over a coffee perhaps, with her late husband Stewart, and I look back fondly on that. I remember one time going to the Black Isle show—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) smiles—and we sat down with some farmers. I was the candidate, and I thought, “This meeting with the farmers at the Black Isle show has to go well”, but Winnie sat down and told them, “Well, if we were independent now, guys, you wouldn’t be suffering the problems with BSE, would you?” I thought that “I told you so” start to it would absolutely torpedo our meeting, but it did not, because Winnie Ewing had style and she had the respect of the people, and it was taken that way. They knew the truth of what she was saying and did not take it badly, and the meeting progressed really well.
Of course, we know that Winnie Ewing has left us not just the great political legacy we are standing on, but her own children, two tremendous Scottish National party MSPs, Fergus Ewing and Annabelle Ewing. We extend our condolences to them as well as to Terry, and to her grandchildren.

Ian Blackford: Indeed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
Winnie was elected to the European Parliament in June 1979.

Angus MacNeil: I remember it.

Ian Blackford: No you don’t!

Angus MacNeil: I do. I was eight years old.

Ian Blackford: Well, not many of us were active in Scottish politics at that time. I was a teenager—let’s be brutal—and in fact, the first election I voted in was that ’79 European election. The general election of 1979 was not our finest hour. It was, if I may say so, a temporary setback for the Scottish National party. We lost some ground and perhaps were not in the best of fettle. In that European election—I remember it well—there were not many expectations that the SNP was going to win any seats in the European Parliament. Indeed, it was forecast that the Liberal Democrats were more likely to take the Highlands and Islands seat. But what a night that was, when Winnie Ewing won the Highlands and Islands for the SNP.
We hear stories about Winnie Ewing’s interaction with the farmers, and the same would have been true if we were talking about fishing people, crofters, those working in the industrial community in Fort William, and so on and so forth. One thing about Winnie was that she worked for her constituents. I remember, when the pulp mill was closing in Fort William, the way that she picked up the phone to every newspaper proprietor up and down the land to try to get business for that pulp and paper mill. The legacy of the work she did, building relationships right across the Highlands and Islands, was that she increased her majority in every election that she fought as a European MP. What a role model she was for us, as someone who believed in our political philosophy, and someone who was ultimately a first-class parliamentarian.
My wife’s family moved into the Hamilton constituency while Winnie was the MP there, and they often talk about the success that she had getting a phone installed for them in the 1960s. Winnie did that casework, and she came to visit them and made sure that she did her job as the local MP.
I say for those on the Government Benches that I am on page 1 of my speech, but I will make some progress over the next while, don’t worry. [Interruption.] I am in my introduction; actually, it is the précis.
Winnie was a trailblazer for those of us who sit on the SNP Benches, but we would do well constantly to remind ourselves of her words from 1974 when, in response to Harold Wilson asking her how she was settling in, she responded:
“I’m not here to settle in. I’m here to settle up”
for Scotland. Let us remind ourselves on these Benches that that is exactly the job that we are expected to do.
When we talk about the memory of those who brought us here, and about what Winnie wanted with Scottish independence, it was not for us, or for past generations that have tilled the soil. It was for those who will follow us and for future generations, so that Scotland can become the country it can be—a prosperous, greener, fairer country that allows our human capital to flourish. That would be an appropriate legacy for Winnie, our dear friend and colleague.
Who was Winnie? She was born and brought up in Glasgow. She attended Glasgow University as well as the Hague Academy of International Law. She was a Scottish nationalist from the young age of nine. A nationalist, but also a European and an internationalist, as I said earlier—perspectives that were to shape much of her political life. Like many who made this journey, she came from a Labour supporting family. Her father George had been a member of the Independent Labour party, and it was only after her father’s death that Winnie learned that he had joined the SNP in July 1967, months before the Hamilton by-election. So many in the Labour party would make that journey towards the SNP—her family made it in the 1970s. It is a pity that no one from the Labour party is here to hear this speech and join the journey that so many in Scotland have already made.
That phrase, “Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on”, encapsulates so much of Winnie’s outlook—that desire for Scotland to achieve its potential; to get on and be the best that we could be. There was no better ambassador for Scotland in Europe than Winnie. She had a focused determination to put Scotland on the map at home and internationally. Although she served with distinction, leaving her mark in Westminster and Europe, that opportunity to serve in the Scottish Parliament brought her particular pleasure.
When Winnie was elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999, it was a culmination of a drive to restore nationhood to Scotland that had driven her since first being elected to Westminster in 1967. It was a journey of 32 years that brought the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament. How fitting it was that Winnie presided over the opening session of the Scottish Parliament, when she proclaimed that
“the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on 25 March 1707, is hereby reconvened.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 12 May 1999; c. 5.]
There was that long journey to Scotland establishing a Parliament, and it being opened by the MSP who was so inspirational in driving forward the process of achieving that Parliament was a recognition of the determination and leadership she had shown since that breakthrough in Hamilton in 1967. Scotland had got on.
Winnie was on her own as an MP in her first Parliament, although she was supported by her Plaid Cymru friend, Gwynfor Evans. Those would be challenging times for her, with the open hostility often shown in this place. How different her experiences would be when she returned to this place in 1974 as the Member for Moray and Nairn and ultimately as a member of the SNP’s first 11. In many respects, it was a challenging Parliament. George Reid, sadly now the only surviving member of that group, remarked of a group meeting when Winnie said:
“Look, if we don’t hang together, we’ll hang apart.”
As was often the case with Winnie, it was sage advice, as apt for all of us today as it was then.
After Westminster came Europe, as we have discussed, and the success that Winnie had there. Before she departed Westminster, she happily took up a number of issues. In her maiden speech in 1967, in a debate on the age of majority, she said:
“There are moral and intellectual reasons why it is good sense to make people responsible at the age of 18 if not sooner—and I mean fully responsible in every sense of the word. They are becoming less inclined to follow their parents’ way of thinking  and they are more able to earn. They have seen the world on the television screen, and the visual is more compelling than reading. They have a very good understanding of what the world is all about. There is a revival of interest in politics. I am sorry that the Report does not talk about voting at 18, because that is in the minds of everyone who considers this matter, but if we go as far as the Report recommends, then voting at 18 may well be the logical next step.
I am absolutely on the side of youth. I would remind the House that even if we give the vote at 18, the average age at which the first vote is cast is 21, and if we give the vote at 21, then the average age at which it is first cast is 23. Mr. Pitt was a good Prime Minister, so it was said, and he was only 23, so that today presumably he might not even have had a vote and could not have been Prime Minister.”—[Official Report, 20 November 1967; Vol. 754, c. 980.]
I am telling that story because this was a woman who recognised the importance of lowering the voting age at that time in the 1970s. If we then think about our referendum in 2014, the Scottish Parliament legislated to make sure that 16 and 17-year-olds got the vote. I know that Winnie was particularly proud of the fact that our young people—those who were going to be part of Scotland’s story—were given that opportunity.
I will close with some reflections on the referendum day in 2014 and Winnie’s remarks when she was interviewed at her home by Hugh MacDonald—incidentally, he was the son of one of the two men who hoisted her aloft after the Hamilton by-election. Perhaps sensing that our cause would not be won that day, she maintained her optimism that the process of independence was going in only one direction. She said:
“I have never had any doubt that Scotland will be independent. None. This is still hopeful Thursday for the Yes campaign. I am not daft. I know this is on a knife edge, but this cannot be stopped. It is a movement. It is a process.”
My dearly departed friend and colleague was exactly right.
I want to make my closing remarks to my colleagues on the SNP Benches about the responsibility that we have. If we think about what we have endured over the course of the last few years since the financial crisis of 2008, the United Kingdom has been in reverse. We have had a decade of decline in living standards, with our people being held in poverty. Our responsibility is to have the vision, the energy, the drive and the leadership so that we can show people in Scotland that it does not have to be this way.
I will reflect for a moment on a book written by a chap called Anderson at Aberdeen University, in which he graphically shows that Scotland’s population in the United Kingdom on a relative basis has declined in every decade since the 1850s. That is a matter of fact. It is not about blaming anyone else but about what happens within the status quo.
People often talk about the deficit that Scotland has, but an important factor that has to be borne in mind is that that is the deficit within the context of the United Kingdom. In many respects we have missed the opportunity of North sea oil. Where is the legacy of the £350 billion- plus harvested in tax revenues from that resource? It is gone. But, friends, we will not make the same mistake a second time. What Scotland is facing now is an enormous opportunity from green energy, not just in providing energy for us but in providing leadership in the global economy.  The Skilling report, which we as a group published last year, demonstrates that Scotland has the potential to increase its green energy output fivefold. Let us think about the opportunities for us if we can capture that supply chain: it is about creating a green industrial future, driving that investment into the Scottish economy, driving up productivity, driving up living standards and delivering the tax receipts that will be necessary to invest in health, education, transport and every other area of social policy in Scotland.
Look at our academic community, look at the excellence and leadership that we have in world-leading universities in Scotland, and think about the opportunity from putting that to work, developing the start-ups and spin-outs of the new industries of the future and not being held back by a United Kingdom that has turned its back on Europe, sent our economy into decline, lost opportunity and struck 4% off our GDP through the foolhardiness of Brexit.
The challenge for us is to say to people, “Yes, there is a better way; there is a way that Winnie Ewing would want us to take.” It is about showing how we would deliver that prosperity, and putting that in the context of the cost of living crisis, where so many of our people are in fuel poverty—my goodness—in a country rich in energy resource. That is the price that we pay for being part of this Union. As we face that election next year, and the opportunity of removing the Tories from power, it is not about removing the Tories in one election; it is about removing the Tories from Scotland for good, because Scotland becomes an independent country. That would be a legacy for Winnie Ewing.

Jamie Stone: Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has just left the Chamber, I come from a different political tradition, but for four years, between 1999 and 2003, I had the privilege and pleasure of serving with Winnie Ewing in the Scottish Parliament. I would like to make a few remarks from a personal angle.
As some Members present know, my parents were small farmers. My father was a small dairy farmer in Easter Ross. In the late ’60s, he and my mother established a small cheese business, which my brother still runs today—enough of the family advert. In the late ’60s, they ventured south of the border and took a stand at the food fair at Olympia. My mum and dad wrote to all the Scottish MPs in this place and asked them to come and visit the stand and taste the cheese. Only one took up the invitation: Winnie Ewing. My parents never forgot that. It meant a huge amount to them.
I did not know Winnie at that stage—I was still at school. Later, my father died, too young. The letter that Winnie wrote to my mother was remarkable. I have it yet; it is a treasured letter that I will never part with, and I trust my children and grandchildren never will either. It meant so much to my mother. This lady transcended party politics. She cut right through to ordinary folk in Scotland. That was a tremendous and rare strength, to which I pay tribute.
In 1999 I appeared, as green as grass, in Holyrood. There was the great lady herself. From the word go she showed nothing but friendship to me. Where my party tended to drink in Deacon Brodie’s, Dr Ewing of Goodwill in Miltonduff rather preferred the Jolly Judge, further  up towards the castle. But many were the happy, small refreshments that I had with Winnie Ewing. We enjoyed each other’s company enormously.
I think, too, of the Durness highland games in north-west Sutherland, where Winnie was a regular—and she was very fondly received by the local folk, I can tell you. She was much loved, and they were really charmed that she came to the games as often as she did. Again, it was a great pleasure to have a small dram with Winnie at the games. One evening, in fact, we maybe had one too many, and Winnie decided that I was her favourite Liberal. I was extremely worried because I thought that might totally destroy my career, so I made sure that all copies of the Northern Times that referred to that were suppressed and never came anywhere near here. I took that as a great compliment. It was meant very kindly indeed.
When the word came out that she had left us, I happened to be in north-west Sutherland at the time. People said, “Oh, dash it; she’s away—what a shame.” When people say that kind of thing about someone who has left us, it is meant ever so genuinely. If my parents were alive today, they would be very sad that Winnie is no longer with us. I am very sad that she is no longer with us. As I said, she transcended party politics; she was way above that. It was an enormous privilege to have known her. Her hard-working attitude and sincere approach were something to behold. I mourn her today. We mourn her today.
I would add two things. First, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) referred to her as Madame Écosse. I was the member of my party who once had to go on the telly and explain why she had won such a huge victory in the highlands. It was a testing event for me, but I come from the school of hard knocks. Secondly, I imagine that a great number of people in Europe, including present and former Members of the European Parliament, will mourn her passing. Can there be any greater epitaph? I doubt it.

Hywel Williams: I am very grateful for this opportunity to pay tribute, on behalf of Plaid Cymru, to the late Winnie Ewing and to send my condolences to the family, particularly Annabelle, who was a very valued Member of this House when I started in 2001. I think she left us in 2005.
Much has already been said about the inspirational contribution Winnie Ewing made to Scottish and European politics. I could add to that, but I just want to note our appreciation in Wales of her contribution, in particular of course her breakthrough election in the Hamilton seat. I was a teenager at the time—you would not think so, being such a young lad—and completely obsessed with politics. Gwynfor Evans had been elected to the Carmarthen seat in 1966, just before Winnie Ewing. We had also had some near misses. As we have some time, and for the interest of the House, I will mention that, in Rhondda West, we came within 1,000 votes of beating the Labour party. They were much more colourful times back then. Our candidate Vic Davies would drive around the valley perched on the back of a big red dragon, which was loaded on to a flatbed lorry, getting his message to the people. It was a complicated message, I have to concede, but he knew how to do it. Then, in  Caerphilly, the much missed Phil Williams, who many people here will remember, again came close to beating the Labour candidate.
Perhaps the most interesting one, if I can just go off on a slight tangent and diversion, which would be of interest to Labour Members, were they here, is S. O. Davies, who, in 1970, was the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil. He was allegedly 82 but probably quite a bit older and Labour decided to deselect him, so he decided to stand as an independent. This is a message for the Labour party: he stood as an independent and trounced the very lacklustre trade union official the Labour party had parachuted in. Interestingly, he was then offered the freedom of Merthyr Tydfil but turned it down, saying that the support of the people of Merthyr Tydfil was quite enough for him, thank you very much. They were much more colourful times.
As a young person in 1967 and 1968, the old world seemed to be dying and the new world was being born—not struggling to be born, but being born—before our eyes. As with S. O. Davies, some people from the old world showed us the way a bit. And that is when we had the Hamilton by-election to spur us on. At the time, I do not think one could overestimate the inspirational quality of Winnie Ewing’s victory. Joining Gwynfor Evans, it seemed that the tide was with us. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said, this place can be very dispiriting. I know how much Gwynfor Evans, as the lone voice of Welsh nationalism, appreciated and welcomed Winnie Ewing’s arrival, which heralded a fruitful partnership between our two parties that has existed ever since.

Angus MacNeil: Just for the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge, in the many times I spent with Winnie Ewing, she mentioned Gwynfor Evans frequently.

Hywel Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Some people around me may be able to see this very interesting picture, which is of Winnie Ewing and Gwynfor Evans together at an advanced age sitting in the sunshine on a bench outside Gwynfor’s house chatting and laughing. I think Winnie was slightly disappointed that the glasses were empty. [Laughter.] There has been a very fruitful partnership between our two parties and that was established a long time ago. May that long continue. True to the path that Winnie Ewing and Gwynfor Evans established over 50 years ago, may we, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber said, never forget that we are here not to settle down but to settle up. That is an inspirational statement.
I am now of an age when the old saw, “They don’t make them like that any more” begins to ring true; I tend to think that as well. So may I say about Winnie Ewing sincerely, “Thank you,” but also, “They don’t make them like that any more.”

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Pete Wishart: I could not have failed to take advantage of the opportunity to speak in a debate entitled “Winnie Ewing” and to add just a few recollections of my time with Winnie, because it was a very special time. Indeed, I think that what has come across in the tributes that we have heard  over the past couple of weeks is how much people enjoyed and appreciated being in her company. She had that special ability to make people feel not just welcome and glad to be with her, but proud to be with her. Spending time with her was something quite special. I spent a lot of time with her and I want to share a couple of stories about that.
There was one day that I will never forget. I was elected in the same year as my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), back in 2001. One of the proudest moments of my life occurred when I was making my maiden speech, from roughly where I am standing now, because over in that Box, the Under-Gallery, sat Winnie Ewing. I kept glancing over to her, and she kept giving me that encouraging smile that I am sure everyone remembers. However, as you probably suspect, Mr Deputy Speaker, she was not there just to hear my eloquence. Her daughter Annabelle was to make her maiden speech the next day, but Winnie was determined to come along and hear all the other new Members of Parliament make their maiden speeches. That is the sort of person she was: she was here to give us solid support and encouragement.
I remember going down to the Strangers Bar with Winnie, as we would inevitably end up doing. On the Terrace, she said, “Your speech was quite good, Pete—the content was quite good—but you are going to have to learn to speak a bit more slowly, and you are going to have to wear better suits.” I leave it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to decide whether I met the standards that were set by Winnie Ewing.
In 2001, the year I was elected, Winnie was a serving Member of the Scottish Parliament. She regularly came up to Perthshire and to Angus, the seat I was contesting at that point. It was always Winnie people wanted to speak to. I had thought myself to be a reasonably exotic candidate, coming from a rock music background, but she was the real rock star: it was Winnie people wanted to speak to on the doorsteps, and she always had time to speak to everybody. I also remember the 2005 campaign, because I ran it, and Winnie was there for all the new candidates. I recall her being particularly thrilled that my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) was a candidate and had a real prospect of winning the seat. Winnie was so proud and pleased about his victory—although I do not know about the rest of us!—because she thought it very special for him to win back the Western Isles after her good friend Donnie Stewart had held it for such a long time. I knew how much she appreciated my hon. Friend’s election.
There is one other thing about Winnie Ewing, and I am going to try to set this right over the next couple of weeks. Winnie was a fantastic singer, and I had the pleasure of recording her for a CD that I was commissioned to make as vice-convener for fundraising for the party back in the 1990s. Rather foolishly, I decided that I would record a few of the personalities in the Scottish National party—with mixed results, it must be said, but one performance stood out, and that was Winnie’s. I remember her wandering into the recording studio like a rock star, straight to the mike, for the first take of “Will Ye No’ Come Back Again?”, the great poem by Lady Nairne, and she sang it so beautifully. I found a  version of the CD which I will share with my colleagues, and I will make sure it is put online. That is a thing that Winnie was always able to do: to give a song, to take part, and to be prepared to do everything else.
I have not been on the SNP’s national executive committee for some years, but Winnie and I ran the election committee that was responsible for vetting candidates for the Scottish Parliament. I will spare his blushes, but someone we vetted is in the vicinity of the Chamber today, and we had a long conversation about his suitability. I think that Winnie won the day, and he is now our Minister for independence in the Scottish Parliament. We had such a great time on that panel. Winnie, Fiona Hyslop and I were given responsibility for vetting candidates, and I think we got most of them right, but we definitely got that one right.
There are so many great memories; there were so many fantastic times with Winnie. She lit up a room. She was a great friend. She was a mentor and a total and utter inspiration for all of us in the Scottish National party. I am so proud and pleased that I spent some of my parliamentary time as a colleague of Winnie, albeit in different Parliaments, and that I had that time to get to know her and to call her a friend in what we were doing. She will always be a massive figure in this party. I know that everybody says we will not see her like again, but we will not. It is hard to believe that somebody of her stature will emerge in the theatre of Scottish politics for a long time.
I know how much my colleagues are hurting and grieving the loss of Winnie Ewing and I know that this parting has been hard, but what a life. What a contribution. What a legend Winnie Ewing is, and we will miss her dearly.

John Lamont: I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to Winnie Ewing in this House today. I want to start by thanking the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for securing the debate, and I also want to express my deepest sympathy to Winnie’s family, particularly Fergus Ewing MSP and Annabelle Ewing MSP, alongside whom I worked during my time as a member of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.
Although our politics could not be more different, I recognise the enormous contribution that Winnie Ewing made to public life in Scotland. The excellent contributions we have heard this evening from Members on both sides of the House are testament to her extraordinary life of public service. Her place in the history of Scottish politics, going back nearly six decades, is secure and very well deserved.
As others have already noted, Winnie Ewing served twice as a Member of Parliament: for Hamilton, after her famous by-election victory in 1967 until 1970, and for Moray and Nairn between 1974 and 1979. She was also a member of the European Parliament for two decades from 1979, earning her unofficial title as Madame Écosse. From 1999 to 2003, she served as a member of the Scottish Parliament. As we have heard already, her words at the opening of the new Parliament have gone down in Scottish history. It is truly a remarkable record of service, with more than 30 years in total as an elected politician. As Members have highlighted, Winnie Ewing was also a dedicated servant to her party as president of the SNP for 18 years from 1987.

Patrick Grady: I thank the Minister for giving way and for his very generous opening remarks. It is also worth putting on the record that Winnie’s late husband Stewart was a councillor in the Summerston area of Glasgow, which I currently represent in this place. Winnie, her husband and her children have between them represented Scotland and the people of Scotland at every conceivable level, which really is a tremendous legacy. I echo the condolences paid to all those who survive her and her family.

John Lamont: I am grateful for that point. I think it is fair to say that the family are a bit of a dynasty in Scottish politics.
All those dates of her terms in office and the various Parliaments tell only a fraction of the Winnie Ewing story. We have been reminded very clearly this evening how she approached politics with intelligence, warmth and wit.
I want to pick up on a couple of points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) made a very important point that Winnie’s family are grieving and we should not forget that. A number of Members spoke of Winnie’s humour and wit, and we heard about her passion for Europe. Personal family memories were shared by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), as well as memories of the friendship that Winnie offered and, clearly, very fond memories of the Jolly Judge pub in Edinburgh at the top of the Royal Mile, which is one of my favourite pubs as well.
The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) pay tribute from a Welsh perspective and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) spoke of memories of Winnie during his maiden speech as well as her various contributions to the SNP campaigning machine.
Winnie Ewing brought a winning combination of charisma and commitment to everything she did throughout her long and distinguished career. Members have reflected on her by-election victory in Hamilton and what that meant to her party and the constitutional ambitions of the Scottish National party to break up the United Kingdom. As I said, our political views on such matters were and remain very different, but I think we can all agree on the huge significance, back in 1967, of the arrival at Westminster of a young and dynamic Scotswoman. Her driving up in a Scottish-built Hillman Imp to the sound of bagpipes set the tone. She was here to make an impact, and there is no doubt that is what she did.
There is no doubt that Winnie Ewing was a trailblazer and a strong role model whose high profile made it easier for other women on all sides to follow in her footsteps. Parliament is a much better place today for the example she set more than half a century ago.
Winnie Ewing was an inspiration to many, and her voice was truly unique. Since her passing was announced last week, we have heard numerous tributes in news reports and obituaries, in speeches at Holyrood and now here today. We have heard many warm and fitting words from across Parliament to remember Winnie and to celebrate her life. I hope Fergus and Annabelle Ewing and her whole family will take comfort from that.

Nigel Evans: Winnie Ewing was a truly legendary politician who served Scotland both in this place and in Europe. Hers was a full life of public service, and a full life well lived. Rest in peace.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.